Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Sheffield

Peter Jonathan, Lord Bishop of Sheffield, was introduced and took the oath, supported by the Bishop of Worcester and the Bishop of Guildford, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Death of a Member: Baroness Masham of Ilton
 - Announcement

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on 12 March. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness as a distinguished Paralympian, the longest-serving life Peer and the longest-serving female Member of this House ever. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.

UK Car Production Since 2016
 - Question

Lord Hain: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of car production in the United Kingdom since 2016.

A noble Lord: No Minister.

A noble Lord: Oh dear.

A noble Baroness: What time do you call this?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: My apologies; I was waiting outside.
The Government are focused on transitioning our car industry from internal combustion engines to electric and other sustainably powered vehicles. Shortages of semiconductors and supply chain disruption have been key factors affecting recent UK and global car production numbers. However, the Government are accelerating and positioning ourselves for growth in electrification and unlocking industry investment.

Lord Hain: I give a warm welcome to the Minister.

A noble Lord: Belated.

Lord Hain: I also appeal to Ministers to be more open. My question asked about car production. Car production in the UK has collapsed by over half since 2016—the worst performance of any car producer in Europe. Even the soaring demand for electrical vehicles is likely to be affected when, under the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, car industry rules of origin exemptions for EVs come to an end this coming December. Brexit has created nothing but uncertainty, extra costs and supply chain problems for business. What incentives have the Government provided for international investors in the car industry to come to this country at a time when the major trading blocs, from which we are now excluded, are becoming more protectionist?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I sincerely thank the noble Lord for raising this point. It is important that we have a strong car industry in this country, and there are some legitimate reasons why the industry is transitioning. As many noble Lords who have been involved in this industry will know, we are moving from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles, which means some lines end and it takes time to start new lines. I am also very aware of the rules of origin issue, and I sincerely hope that our new relationship with Europe will allow us to have a more constructive conversation around that. It is in no one’s interest to have a trade war on cars.
I will finish by saying that there have been some great announcements over the last few years, and the Government have been extremely influential and relevant in supporting companies such as Nissan and Envision, with investment in the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port and support for Pensana’s factory near Hull. Ford has committed just under £0.25 billion of investment in Halewood, and in 2022, Bentley announced a £2.5 billion investment to produce its first battery electrical vehicles by 2026, which will secure 4,000 jobs at its Crewe plant. There is certainly more that we can do, but we are acting, and we are trying to transition our car industry into one that is sustainable for the future.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, with growing Chinese competition in car manufacturing—in fact, China is dominating the EV market altogether—there are obviously even worse challenges to come. But would my noble friend like to say what he thinks about the EU proposal, announced yesterday, to go for what it calls a Net-Zero Industry Act to compete with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, because it is very nervous that Volkswagen and other European manufacturers are all about to move from France and Germany to the United States? How are we going to work it out in this situation? It seems rather dangerous.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank my noble friend for his comments. There has been a large amount of debate around the value of the Inflation Reduction Act, which I believe is the greatest oxymoronic legislative title in history, frankly, as I cannot believe that it will reduce inflation. Some of its measures are also relatively protectionist. The Government are investing heavily, not just in car manufacturing but in the research and development around it. For example, the Faraday  Challenge amounts to £500 million, the Automotive Transformation Fund is hundreds of millions of pounds and the Advanced Propulsion Centre is providing huge amounts of much-needed money for new car production facilities and the inventiveness around that. It is not good enough just to try to find a bigger bazooka; we must ensure we focus on regulation and proper support for R&D, because our brains are our best defence.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, the Minister may call it “transitioning” but most people will call it “declining”. But let us take his word: transitioning. In order to create the industry for electric vehicles, Britain needs a gigafactory. The Government pinned their hopes on the Britishvolt factory. That failed, the company is being taken over and it will now be used for a different purpose. Last week I asked how the Government’s ambitions for a gigafactory would be fulfilled in the very near future. I did not get a detailed answer and I would be very grateful if the Minister could give me a proper answer now that explains how the industry is going to be able to rely on a gigafactory at the centre of government strategic thinking.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I greatly appreciate the pressing on this point. It is essential that we have strong battery manufacture capability in this country if we are to have an automotive industry. Do not be under any illusion: the Government are concentrating on this night and day. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that I think the Britishvolt transition —if I can use that word again—was quite successfully handled. The Government pledged money, which should have worked in the financing. Unfortunately, it had to evolve to a new owner, but that transition has been successfully managed and it will still be making battery materials and technology.
As I highlighted earlier, through government support through the Automotive Transformation Fund, Nissan and Envision have signed a deal to produce batteries. Importantly, this is linked to a critical mineral supply deal we did with Indonesia that I personally helped steer through after the excellent work of my noble friend Lord Grimstone. This does not just give us battery manufacturing capability. As importantly, the focus of this Government is to make sure that we have the materials to supply these batteries, so that we can be ahead of our competitors.

Lord Stirrup: My Lords, the Minister referred to our brains as being our competitive advantage. The Government reiterated in the integrated review refresh their ambition for the UK to be investing 2.4% of GDP in R&D. The OECD average is 2.7%. Does the Minister think that the Government’s ambition is likely to turn us into a so-called superpower in terms of science, and will that be sufficient to support the kinds of ambitions we ought to have in our car industry?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his point. I am glad he agrees with us that our brains are our best defence. I see around this House many good examples of that. I would stress  that the Government are investing not simply in R&D in science and technology to become a science and technology superpower, but heavily in education, which is not necessarily classified under those figures. I saw recently an extra £2.8 billion being announced for education and training. We have further projects to ensure that our tertiary education remains the strongest in the world with, I might point out, three of the top 10 greatest universities in the world coming from this nation, which is something we should celebrate.

Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: My Lords, why are the Government investing for their own fleet of cars in South Korea? My friends in Sunderland are bewildered as to why investment is going to South Korea and not to the Nissan Leaf in Sunderland.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I greatly appreciate the noble Baroness for drawing this to my attention; I am afraid that I was unaware of government investment in Korean car production, so maybe we can follow that up at a later date. As I said, the Government have provided a huge amount of support for the motor industry, not just financial support but real support. I can assure her that the Office for Investment, which is under me at the Department for Business and Trade, works continually to ensure that all the opportunities around the world are brought to this country so that we can have a strong car manufacture and research and development industry in this nation.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords—

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords—

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness from the Green Party, followed by my noble friend Lord Lamont.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: It is good that the Minister emphasises R&D, but, truly, electric cars are not really sustainable, so the Government will actually have to think about the next generation of much more sustainable vehicles. Will any of that research and development go into improving our public transport networks—not HS2?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am grateful, as always, for the prompting on the importance of achieving net zero and sustainability over the next so many years. I draw this House’s attention to the broadness of our attempts to build a sustainable automotive sector in this country, with Johnson Matthey announcing in July an £80 million hydrogen gigafactory at its existing site in Royston. So this is not simply about EVs; it is important that we want to have a diversified strategy to ensure that we are sustainable for the future. That requires effort, finance and the businesses themselves to be successful, and we are supporting all those three.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is the European-wide nature of the problems facing the car industry not illustrated by the fact that Germany in 2021 produced fewer car passenger vehicles than it did 30 years ago? The German Ministry for Economic Affairs has prophesised that there will be loss of  100,000 jobs in the car industry because of the transition. Has my noble friend the Minister noted the intention announced by both the German and Italian industry Ministers that they may veto the previous decision of the EU to phase out CO2-emitting cars by 2035? If that were to happen, what would the impact be on Britain, with its different target?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I appreciate my noble friend’s point on this subject. We are committed to our targets, and it is absolutely right to achieve net zero by the date we have set. I am glad that he mentioned the other European car manufacturers, because this past week alone the Prime Minister travelled to Paris for a summit with President Macron to work on the very important task of rebuilding our links with Europe, to ensure we can have sensible conversations with our European partners. I call that Project Grand Amour, and it has been enormously successful. If we look ahead at some of the problems facing us, particularly in our automotive industry—and at the importance of ensuring we have strong trading relationships with our European neighbours, which is the essence of this point—we should be extremely grateful for, and indeed celebrate, the Prime Minister’s wonderful and marvellous actions last week in the new Belle Alliance.

Cleaner Energy Technologies
 - Question

Lord Roborough: To ask His Majesty’s Government what form of carbon reduction costing or pricing they use to assess the relative merits of different cleaner energy technologies in reducing the United Kingdom’s carbon emissions.

Lord Roborough: My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interests as set out in the register.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, published carbon values are used across government for valuing the impacts on emissions resulting from policy interventions, including options for different clean energy technologies. Those values are consistent with the UK’s domestic and international climate change targets.

Lord Roborough: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. In light of third-party research suggesting that atmospheric carbon units would need to be at an unaffordable price of several hundred pounds per tonne, even many years into the future, for electrolytic hydrogen to make economic sense, can he reassure the House that the Government are confident in the economic case for its support and that the economics will remain under review?

Lord Callanan: I understand the point my noble friend is making, but the potential of hydrogen to support the global transition to net zero is widely  recognised, with international partners, such as the US and the EU, also having set out significant support for hydrogen. The Government are supporting multiple hydrogen production technologies, including both CCUS-enabled and electrolytic hydrogen, to get the scale and cost reductions we need.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit released a report last week that stated that, when it comes to green steel, the EU has some 38 projects, while the United Kingdom has one—and eight of those in Europe are already functioning. Does that mean, for the country that invented the Industrial Revolution, that we are about to see the extinction of our steel industry?

Lord Callanan: No, I think the noble Lord is being too pessimistic, as he often is. We have ambitious projects supporting steel. The noble Lord is right that hydrogen is probably one of the technologies that will be required to decarbonise the steel industry and we are working closely with the industry on that.

Lord Lennie: My Lords, in 2021 the Government set out in guidance a revised approach to valuing greenhouse gas emissions due to the more ambitious goal in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise and the UK’s legal requirement to achieve net zero by 2050. Can the Minister say what steps the Government have taken since this adjustment to ensure that the revised approach is meeting its intended goals?

Lord Callanan: We give a value to carbon and use that to inform our policies, not least through the ETS. We have supported a number of early-stage technologies. Offshore wind was extremely expensive when we first started supporting it; now it is very cost-competitive and we are confident that we will end up in the same position on hydrogen.

Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the only way even to get close to the net-zero targets is to make major changes to the current energy policies to enable a substantial increase in both the number and speed of deployment of nuclear reactors?

Lord Callanan: I certainly agree with my noble friend that we need to expand both the potential and the deployment of nuclear reactors, and we are doing just that. We recently passed the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, for which I am grateful for the House’s support. We have invested several hundred million pounds in the new Sizewell plant and are supporting Rolls-Royce to develop the next generation of small modular reactors.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I think the Minister would be disappointed if I did not raise with him one established clean technology: onshore wind. Can he tell the House what progress we are making with the consultations about lifting the effective ban on new onshore wind developments? Yesterday, the noble Lord,  Lord Naseby, referred to the parliamentary pension fund and its investments and report. As a pensioner, I read its report and was delighted to see a photograph of a wind turbine in which the pension fund had invested. My disappointment was that it was in Sweden, not the UK. When can we get some investment and some jobs in onshore wind in this country?

Lord Callanan: I would indeed be disappointed if the noble Baroness did not raise the subject of onshore wind. She partly answered her own question in that she knows that we are consulting on revising the planning policy framework. I think she is doing us a bit of a disservice. Sweden has a different topography and interests from those of this country. Where we have a world-leading operation is, of course, in offshore wind, where we have the biggest offshore wind farm in the world—and the second, third and fourth. We are truly world leading.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, has my noble friend made an assessment of the amount of water needed to create hydrogen for use in energy technology? Is this going to be an issue in areas of the UK that might be water-stressed at this time?

Lord Callanan: If there is one thing many parts of the UK are not short of, it is water. The noble Baroness’s point is partly valid in that we need substantial quantities of water for producing electrolytic hydrogen, which is fundamentally electricity and water, so that is something we need to bear in mind in terms of location.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, as the Minister fully appreciates, we do not necessarily get the energy at the right time from some of the alternative sources and that brings into play the importance of pumped-storage schemes. Is he aware of concern in the industry that the regulations the Government are abiding by are holding back the development of pumped storage and will he please have a look at this in association with those in his department?

Lord Callanan: The noble Lord is of course right in that renewables are good, available and cheap but they are intermittent so we need technology such as nuclear, which has already been referred to, and pumped storage, of which there are excellent examples in Wales. We will certainly look at removing any future barriers to the deployment of further pumped storage.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, on an earlier occasion, the Minister referred to the possibilities of nuclear fusion. Is he in a position to say whether the contribution that British scientists have been making to this exciting possibility are inching forward in any way? Given the earlier exchanges about the importance of lithium in making batteries for electric cars, how does the Minister respond to reports today that China already possesses 25% of the lithium market and within a decade will have 30%? Of course, it relies on child slave labour in countries such as Congo to make those batteries.

Lord Callanan: The noble Lord had two questions there. I completely agree with him about fusion. We need to support it, but of course it is at a very early stage. It has great potential, but it seems to have had great potential for many years now. The noble Lord’s other point on the use of critical minerals is important, of course, which is why we have a critical minerals strategy. There are also lots of exciting new battery technologies which might perhaps not need so much lithium—so the Chinese need to be careful that they are not investing in the wrong technologies.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: Has the Minister seen the recent report from the Climate Change Committee, which says:
“A reliable, secure and decarbonised power system by 2035 is possible—but not at this pace of delivery”?
Indeed, it went on to say that there had been a lost year in which politicians had not acted with the necessary determination and delivery. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are on target to meet the targets that have been set? The committee really does not think that they are.

Lord Callanan: Well, if the noble Baroness is referring to the legally binding carbon budgets, of course by their very nature they are legal targets and we have to meet them. We have met all our carbon budgets so far—in fact, we have exceeded them—but of course as we go on it gets more difficult. We have lots of ambitious policies to continue rolling out renewables and other carbon-reduction technologies, but we will respond to the CCC report in due course.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, not unexpectedly, I ask: “Tidal power?”

Lord Callanan: Yes, well, however many times the noble Lord asks me that question, he gets the same answer. We are supporting tidal stream technology under the latest CfD round—and of course we keep the technology under review and, if the costs come down, we will want to continue to support it and roll out further projects.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, when does Minister expect the carbon capture and storage projects to go ahead?

Lord Callanan: It depends on which projects the noble Lord is referring to. He might hear some good news in the near future with regard to the track 1 cluster announcements.

Lord Lilley: Could my noble friend tell the House what the Government’s estimate is of the social cost of carbon?

Lord Callanan: I am not quite sure where the noble Lord is going on that question. Perhaps we should have a more detailed discussion outside the Chamber.

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee: My Lords, given the energy trilemma of the cost, the mix and security of supply, and given the year that we have had, should security of supply not be given more prominence in energy policy?

Lord Callanan: The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Security of supply is vital, and it is one reason why we want to continue to roll out the deployment of renewables in the UK—because, of course, if it is generated in the UK, it is secure. Part of the problem that we have seen over the past year has been our exposure to the vagaries of international markets. Sadly, we get only 40% of our gas supplies now from our own resources in the North Sea, and the rest we have to import, either by LNG or by pipeline. So we want more secure, reliable power generated here in the UK, because of course that is the most secure.

Schools: Data, Digital and Financial Literacy
 - Question

Lord Holmes of Richmond: To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to designate data, digital, and financial literacy as compulsory subjects in primary and secondary schools in England.

Lord Holmes of Richmond: In asking my Question on the Order Paper, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, data, digital and financial literacy all feature in compulsory national curriculum subjects. For example, data literacy is covered within mathematics, science, computing and geography, digital literacy within computing and relationships, sex and health education, and financial literacy within citizenship and mathematics. They also feature within the subject content of GCSEs which count within the English baccalaureate. The statutory national curriculum tests and assessments, the Ofsted inspections and the EBacc further encourage schools to teach these subjects.

Lord Holmes of Richmond: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, considering so many of the challenges facing particularly our young people in online and offline situations, that it would be helpful to do more than encourage effective quality data on digital and financial literacy—not just through school but throughout life? That would be beneficial not just to young people but to all people.

Baroness Barran: I absolutely agree with my noble friend that all those are critical skills, and that is why they are woven through the curriculum at all stages, and why we put particular emphasis in the new T-levels on digital skills.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, given the importance of this subject and the risks that children in particular run on a daily basis with the internet, why have the Government not seized a golden opportunity in the Online Safety Bill to set minimum standards for digital and media literacy in schools and give Ofcom greater powers in terms of media literacy strategy?

Baroness Barran: Our Online Safety Bill goes a long way to addressing the concerns that the noble Lord rightly raises, but I should like to reassure him that some of that is also reinforced by the work that we are doing at every key stage in our schools.

Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, recently I had the privilege of serving on your Lordships’ Communications Committee. What came through consistently in our inquiry into the effects of technology on the creative industries was the need for creative and artistic literacy as well as digital literacy—we need STEAM, not just STEM. I speak as a former scientist deeply committed to science and technology. Does the Minister agree and, if so, what can the Government do to enable that, given their reluctance to review the national curriculum and prioritise arts more?

Baroness Barran: The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. Certainly, when I was talking to a number of young people recently, they raised exactly the same issues as he does. I do not think that there is any resistance at all from the Government about the importance of a STEAM curriculum; we talk a lot about STEM, but we also talk a lot about our vibrant and incredibly successful creative industries. Our commitment to the teaching workforce has been that, during this period of recovery post Covid, there will be no changes to the national curriculum.

Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, seeing that, according to last year’s Ofcom research, 6% of households —1.6 million—have no internet access, have the Government looked closely at the relationship between that and digital literacy in schools? If so, what do they conclude and how many children do they estimate that this affects?

Baroness Barran: If one looks from the other end of the telescope, the noble Earl will be aware that the Government were proactive during Covid in making sure that children who could not access a laptop and the internet were given equipment to be able to do so.

Baroness Wilcox of Newport: My Lords, my party has long been calling for reform of the citizenship curriculum to include practical life skills such as budgeting and, most importantly, young people staying safe online. Are the Government still committed to keeping the curriculum in England as it is at present, despite large gaps in the current provision for the children and young people of the 21st century?

Baroness Barran: I have the advantage of having the citizenship curriculum in front of me. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness and the House that  it absolutely covers the issues that she raises. It looks at saving, spending and use of money through key stages 1 and 2 but, in particular, budgeting and managing risk at key stage 3 and beyond.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I strongly support the far-seeing proposal of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. Every country in Europe is teaching its students up to the age of 16 in digital, computing and technical skills. Some 90% of our students in school today are taught nothing about artificial intelligence, computer-assisted design, cybersecurity, virtual reality or networking online and coding. Is it not time for torpor and indifference to disappear? The Department for Education and its Ministers should now recognise that they should bring in a curriculum based upon our digital age.

Baroness Barran: That is exactly what the department is doing with its T-levels.

Lord Sikka: My Lords, while reviewing the school curriculum, will the Minister ensure that pupils have access to compulsory courses on ethics and human rights? This would help to ensure that future generations are relieved of the pain caused by directors of profiteering companies and members of the Government who may be inclined to flout international laws and human rights.

Baroness Barran: The noble Lord makes a broader point. Many of those issues are indeed covered in the curriculum. Specifically in relation to financial choices, there is dedicated time to look at social and moral dilemmas, to which the noble Lord refers, within the citizenship curriculum today.

Baroness Sater: My Lords, the APPG on Financial Education for Young People’s recent report alarmingly highlighted that 41% of secondary school teachers in England said they did not think that financial education is required as part of the curriculum, and a further 15% did not know. Does the Minister agree with the APPG’s recommendation that Ofsted undertake a series of deep dives into financial education provision across schools as a matter of urgency?

Baroness Barran: I am very sympathetic to the issues that my noble friend raises, but our approach to these issues has been to weave them through multiple aspects of the curriculum. My noble friend will be aware that, for example in relation to maths and computing, this is something that Ofsted will regularly be doing deep dives into when it is inspecting individual schools.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, while I agree very much with what my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Baker said, I ask my noble friend to look very carefully at the history curriculum. It really is shameful that young people do not have history as a compulsory subject after the age of 14. It is also shameful that most of them leave school knowing very little about the history of their own country, of Europe or of any  part of the world. They have certain samples, such as the Nazis and the Tudors, but there is no chronology. Can we look at that?

Baroness Barran: I am very happy to take my noble friend’s suggestion back to the department.

Lord Storey: My Lords, independent research by Cambridge University, published by the Money and Pensions Service, suggests that money habits are formed as early as the age of seven. This shows that educating children about money at primary school is very important. Has the Minister heard of GoHenry, a charity set up by parents that gives a prepaid debit card to children, along with an educational app so they can understand financial affairs? If she has not, will she meet them? It might be of interest in developing this curriculum.

Baroness Barran: I have heard of it, but I would also be delighted to meet them. Just to repeat, at the earliest stage, at key stage 1, the compulsory curriculum includes helping children understand how they make choices about how to spend, how to save and how to use money.

Lord Aberdare: My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to improve the balance between technical, academic and creative subjects in schools so that all pupils have the opportunity to pursue and develop knowledge and skills in the areas for which they are best suited, rather than being left behind if they do not achieve five good GCSEs?

Baroness Barran: I thank the noble Lord for the question. He is aware that the Government are very committed to improving the quality of our skills offer, hence the reforms we have made at level 3 qualifications and the introduction of T-levels. It is not just at schools: we are really stressing the opportunities for young people across a range of apprenticeships and other routes into the workplace so that they can realise their potential.

Patient Deaths: Ambulance Waiting Times
 - Question

Baroness Merron: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that over 500 seriously ill patients died in England last year after long waits for an ambulance; and what steps they are taking in response.

Lord Markham: We recognise the pressures facing the NHS and the need to recover performance following the impact of the pandemic. We are working hard to make sure that no one waits longer than necessary, given how important response times are for patient care and outcomes. We are backing  the NHS to meet these challenges and our emergency care plan will deliver one of the fastest and longest-sustained improvements in waiting times in history, backed by £1 billion in funding and up to 800 new ambulances.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, it is alarming that last year, the number of deaths of patients waiting for an ambulance for up to 15 hours more than doubled from the previous year. What action will the Government urgently take, co-ordinated across the whole of health and social care services, to reverse this tragic tide? Can the Minister also explain the lack of a government plan over the years for getting to hospital in time those who have had a stroke or a heart attack, whose breathing has stopped, or who have been in an accident?

Lord Markham: I thank the noble Baroness for that question. As I said, we are providing 800 new ambulances, but there is a flow issue, as she rightly points out. To resolve the issue at the back end, so to speak, £500 million will be provided for new adult social care places, which is a vital part of unblocking 13% of the beds that are blocked and creating space throughout the system. At the same time, providing ambulance hubs will create offloading space so that ambulances can quickly get back on the road again. These are all key aspects. Fortunately, we are starting to see an improvement but there is a lot more that needs to be done.

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: My Lords, talking of patient care, is it not a matter of shame that the strike by junior doctors is leading to patients with heart problems and cancer problems and those needing hip operations having their operations postponed for more than six months, because the doctors have walked out of hospitals and operating theatres? How does that help patient care?

Lord Markham: Clearly, we regret any circumstances where capacity is taken out of the system, and this is a clear example. Patient care is primary, and we hope to sit down and resolve the differences. I am glad to say that we are now having good conversations with the nurses’ unions and other unions, and I hope we can have similar productive conversations with the doctors.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, NHS data shows that there are significant variations in ambulance response times in different areas of England, and we see especially long response times in areas like the east of England, where some category 4 patients were waiting for over eight hours in February. Can the Minister explain how we got into this situation with what are supposed to be national targets? What are the Government doing specifically to help areas that are currently missing the targets by a country mile?

Lord Markham: Local ICBs—integrated care boards—are integral to this, understanding the need for ambulances in each of their areas. As noble Lords have heard me say before, often, having a fall does not  require an ambulance response at all, but it is much better to have a full service. Now, it is the responsibility of every ICB to set up a full service so it can respond more appropriately. Additionally, we are tasking each ICB with getting on top of ambulance wait times.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s February report says:
“The crisis in emergency care is relentless and staff are burned out and exhausted. The significant shortfall of beds and staff is driving this crisis.”
In February there were 1.2 million A&E attendances. More than 126,000 patients waited more than four hours from the decision to admit them—these are trolley waits —and nearly 35,000 of those were delayed by more than 12 hours. What are the Government doing in their workforce plan to look at projected workload and figures and ensure that the plan has minimum staffing levels and staff numbers overall?

Lord Markham: The noble Baroness is correct that capacity is key to this, as are the workforce and the workforce plan. I am pleased to say that a more advanced version of that will be published shortly, hopefully showing that we are getting on top of it. At the same time, we have put 7,000 extra beds into the system, which is starting to have an impact. Category 2 wait times are down by an hour compared with last month, but clearly there is more that we need to do.

Lord Sahota: My Lords, I declare that I am a councillor in Telford and Wrekin. Shrewsbury and Telford hospitals are under one health trust. The Government plan to close 24/7 A&E services at Telford hospital, which means that people will have to travel 15 miles to Shrewsbury in ambulances. This will put further pressure on our already overstretched ambulance services. Does the Minister agree that this will have a negative impact on the people of Telford and Wrekin?

Lord Markham: I am convinced that the ICS will make the best decisions for that area. I am very familiar with Sir Jim Mackey’s plans, which advocate setting up so-called hot and cold sites. It is often better to specialise in A&E in one area and “cold” elective treatments in another, in order to have more efficient treatment in both. I imagine that is very much part of the plan, which will see improvements in both A&E and elective services.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, may I ask about dissemination of good practice? Some trusts are improving ambulance response times but others are not. I accept that they are working in different geographies with different demographics, and have different A&E capacity in each area, but how are the Government making sure that proven best practice is being disseminated across the country?

Lord Markham: The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. Some 50% of all wait times—I have used this statistic before and I will correct it if I have not got it exactly right—come from I think 20 trusts. Clearly,  there is a focus on working on those areas. That is starting to bear fruit, with each of those trusts having specific plans to ensure that they use best practice. We have tried to pick the best practitioners in an area— I have done this on two occasions recently—and bring them into the centre to help us advise across the board. That really is making a difference.

Baroness Manzoor: My Lords, as well as disseminating good practice, there is the issue of accountability. The Government have put significant sums of money into the NHS, so what are the regulators —NHS England and others—doing to ensure that good practice is disseminated and, more importantly, that the chief executives and the boards are delivering on the commitments they have made?

Lord Markham: My noble friend is absolutely correct: with responsibility for these things comes accountability, and it is the job of us all to hold people to account where performance is not where it should be. I know each Minister has their own set of ICBs— I have a particularly close relationship with seven; other Ministers have the same—so that we can bear down on exactly these sorts of differences and hold people to account.

Lord Patel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the junior doctors’ representative at the BMA and the Department of Health should get round the table and negotiate the end of the doctors strike before more harm is done to the patients? To express a personal view, as a doctor, I would never withdraw my services from patients.

Lord Markham: I thank the noble Lord for his contribution, as ever. Yes, absolutely; these things always have to be resolved around the table. As I say, I am pleased that we are making good progress with nurses and ambulance workers, and I hope we can get around the table and make more good progress with GPs as well.

Lord Watts: My Lords, there is a shortage of nurses, a shortage of doctors and a shortage of ambulances. What have the Government been doing for 13 years to let this crisis happen?

Lord Markham: Noble Lords will be aware that this is a situation facing people all around the world. Just today I was being grilled by a Select Committee talking about the problems in Stanford in California, where people were having to wait 48 hours to go from A&E to get to a bed. It is a worldwide issue.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Markham: It absolutely is; just look at Wales, at Scotland and at the whole country: it is a systemwide issue and we are implementing a systemwide solution. We have recruited 29,000 additional nurses, with still more to come and more in training than before. There are more doctors. We are targeting 50 million  additional GP appointments and we have increased them by 30 million to date. That is solid action. Is there more to do? Yes. Are there plans to address that? Yes. Will I report on them very regularly? Absolutely.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
 - Order of Commitment

Lord True: Moved by Lord True
That the order of commitment of 8 February be discharged and the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee; and that the instruction to the Committee of the Whole House of 8 February shall also be an instruction to the Grand Committee.
Motion agreed.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Moved by Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 March
Motion agreed.

Electronic Trade Documents Bill [HL]
 - Report

Report received.

Public Order Bill
 - Commons Amendments and Reasons

Motion A

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1A in lieu.
1A: Page 36, line 15, at end insert the following new Clause— “Meaning of serious disruption (1) For the purposes of this Act, the cases in which individuals or an organisation may suffer serious disruption include, in particular, where the individuals or the organisation— (a) are by way of physical obstruction prevented, or hindered to more than a minor degree, from carrying out— (i) their day-to-day activities (including in particular the making of a journey), (ii) construction or maintenance works, or (iii) activities related to such works, (b) are prevented from making or receiving, or suffer a delay that is more than minor to the making or receiving of, a delivery of a time-sensitive product, or  (c) are prevented from accessing, or suffer a disruption that is more than minor to the accessing of, any essential goods or any essential service. (2) In this section— (a) “time-sensitive product” means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them; (b) a reference to accessing essential goods or essential services includes in particular a reference to accessing— (i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel, (ii) a system of communication, (iii) a place of worship, (iv) a transport facility, (v) an educational institution, or (vi) a service relating to health.”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Motion C.
Amendment 1 provides a definition of “serious disruption” which is the trigger for a number of offences and powers contained in the Bill. As I explained when this was first considered on Report, the Government do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. First, it does not read compatibly with the measures in the Bill—a point made by several of your Lordships during that debate. Secondly, it does not set an appropriate threshold for what constitutes serious disruption, which is why, on Report, the Government supported the definition proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The Government have brought an amendment in lieu to more closely align the definition with that proposed by the noble and learned Lord and to address these two issues. The new proposed threshold is rooted in case law from both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It now has the support of the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has tabled Motion A1, which replaces the “more than minor” threshold in this amendment with “significant”. I will paraphrase the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who, when this was debated on Report, expertly argued why “more than minor” was an appropriate threshold. There is no question that minor disruption is not only acceptable but is a constituent part of the right to protest. However, when disruption exceeds this, the police should intervene. The use of “more than” implements this concept in law, which is why the Government continue to support the formulation of the noble and learned Lord. We encourage your Lordships to support Amendment 1A.
Motion C relates to journalists. This group concerns Amendment 17, which seeks to establish a specific safeguard for journalists and bystanders during protests. It is in response to the unlawful arrest of the LBC journalist, Charlotte Lynch, and others by Hertfordshire Constabulary in October 2022. The Government are clear that the role of members of the press must be respected. They should be able to do their job freely and without restriction. However, we remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary. The police may exercise their powers of arrest and powers to maintain public order and public safety only in limited circumstances specified in law. Therefore, there is no need whatever for carve-outs of circumstances where these powers cannot be used.
However, we recognise the strength of support for this amendment. Sometimes there is a need to send a signal as to the values and principles we stand for; this is one of those times. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment in lieu in the other place. It accepts the principle of the amendment while also minimising the risk of unintended consequences. We make it explicit that the police may still use their powers on those reporting and observing protests when it is necessary and lawful to do so. The police must still be able to exercise their powers on journalists and observers who break the law or who put public safety at risk.
Amendment 17A was supported by the other place, including by the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that it will now also be accepted by your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Lord Coaker: Moved by Lord Coaker
At end insert “and do propose the following amendments to Amendment 1A—
1B: In subsection (1)(a), leave out “more than a minor” and insert “a significant”
1C: In subsection (1)(b), leave out “delay that is more than minor” and insert “significant delay”
1D: In subsection (1)(c), leave out “disruption that is more than minor” and insert “significant disruption””

Lord Coaker: My Lords, the Minister said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, proposed his amendment for “more than minor” and that was why the Government reintroduced it in the Commons and were supporting it again. Of course, that was lost when it was debated in your Lordships’ House and the Government have inserted “more than minor”—admittedly, with some flowers and curtains around it. I keep saying to noble Lords that it goes to the heart of the debate as to the threshold we wish to set where we start to undermine the right to protest. I still contend that the Government’s “more than minor” threshold is too low. Hence my Motion A1 would insert in subsection (1)(a) “significant” instead of “more than a minor”; in subsection (1)(b), it would leave out
“delay that is more than minor”
and insert “significant delay”, and in subsection (1)(d), it would leave out
“disruption that is more than minor”
and insert “significant disruption”. The point of that is, of course, to raise the threshold.
First, because I think it is important for noble Lords to understand, I want an assurance from the Minister that whatever we decide will be respected by the Government. To refer back to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, Sections 73 and 74 define public nuisance and impose conditions on public processions, public assemblies and various sorts of activities, including defining what activity may result in serious disruption. Tucked away in those sections is the power for the Government to change any of that  by regulation. I want a categorical assurance from the Minister that, were the Government to lose the amendments before us today, and they may win, and the Bill went back to the other place, or if the amendments that could not be reinserted in the Commons because they had been introduced in the Public Order Bill only in the Lords—namely, what we called the “slow walking” clause and the “reasonable excuse” amendments—were lost, the Government will not seek to overturn the expressed will of this Chamber and, I hope, eventually the will of the other place by using Sections 73 and 74 of that Act, which they could do. I would appreciate that.
The debate today centres on thresholds. At what level should we restrict the right to protest, above the laws that we already have? We already have a number of laws that restrict the right to protest and allow us to deal with protests as they occur. Indeed, many chief constables, including the chief constable of Manchester, have asked why we do not use the existing legislation. Notwithstanding that, the Government have panicked and come forward with the Bill to try to deal with what they perceive as a problem.
To make this real, I spent Sunday afternoon looking at various protests that have taken place around the country that, I contend, with a “more than minor” threshold would under the Bill be something that the police could arrest people for and stop. I ask everybody in this Chamber whether that is what people want, because I contend that it is what the “more than minor” threshold will mean, rather than the “significant” threshold that I am seeking to replace it with.
Let me quickly go through some of these protests that made the headlines, which would be illegal under the Bill. The first is “Protest in Oxford blocks major road in both directions”. I suggest that, before a court, that may not be significant but is more than minor. Next we have a “No HS2” protest. Some people may have more sympathy with that, but lots of protests have taken place with respect to that. “No nuclear power station” protests have taken place in Suffolk. Are they covered by the Bill? They come under “more than minor”, and I contest that offences would be committed under the Bill. East Sussex residents protested outside the housing department at the treatment of a road and blocked access. That is an offence under the Bill, and certainly above the “more than minor” threshold. Next is “Furious parents block road to protest poor enforcement of school street in north London”. I contend that that is an offence under the Bill. In the case of “Wellingborough: Protesters halt tree-felling plans”, they blocked the diggers and the cutters, which is not allowed under the Bill and is certainly more than minor. Two more are angry mothers blocking drivers over school drop-offs and unhappy Trowbridge residents turning out to block tree cutting. Under the Bill, some of these protests would be illegal and the police could potentially have the capacity to arrest.
We also saw the massive protests that took place last July when summer holidays were affected. Thousands of lorry drivers across the country blocked the M4, the M5, the M32 and the A38 in protest at the cost of fuel. My contention is that under the Bill that is more than minor and those protesting against the cost of  fuel would be liable to arrest more than they are now. If you are blocking five or six motorways, that is certainly more than minor. What else did I find? Farmers blocked roads in protests; tractors were used in response to falling milk prices. That would not be allowed under the Bill. Blocking a major road is certainly more than minor. There is example after example showing that the Bill puts at risk the rights of people to protest. It puts at risk one of the democratic traditions of our country.
I do not hold with the idea that the Minister seeks to ban protests. That is ridiculous: I have never said that. What I have said is that the Bill unnecessarily restricts the right to protest and unnecessarily causes uncertainty about what is allowed or not. Lowering the threshold would mean that activity that is currently allowable in some of the examples I have given would not be. That is because of the phrase “more than minor”.
I am sure that many noble Lords will wish to comment on that, but all I ask is for noble Lords to reflect that if a tractor turns up, a mother turns up or a group links arms, before anything has happened it could be illegal under the Bill—this is the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It does not even have to have caused disruption; it simply has to be capable of causing disruption. You can turn up with five tractors and park in a car park, and if the police think you are going to do something, even if you have not done anything, they could stop it because it is capable of causing disruption.
The Government will say, “Of course, this is ridiculous —an overreaction. Stupid nonsense. Why on earth is that going to happen? Our police will not act in that way. Ridiculous. People will be shaking their heads in disbelief that anybody could posit that anything like this would happen in our country.” All I say is: why would you pass legislation that creates the potential and the risk for it to happen?
It is not the way to legislate. Existing laws are appropriate and satisfactory and could be used. They are not being used as effectively as they could be. The Government’s answer to Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and all that is to seek to pass a totally disproportionate piece of legislation. Through my Motion I am trying to mitigate the impact and effects of that. I beg to move.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, since the noble Lord was kind enough to mention my name, I should perhaps briefly explain the thinking behind the form of words the Government have introduced to this debate.
Before I do, I remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said at Third Reading—words that are worth listening to again. He said that
“the debates here and the changes made reflect a genuine attempt to address where the line should be drawn between the right to protest and the right of others to go about their daily lives.”—[Official Report, 21/2/23; cols. 1560-61.]
Those are valuable words and were worth saying again because they encapsulate exactly the dispute between us, which has been conducted with a great level of courtesy, certainly on the other side of the House and, I hope, on my side too, in trying to find a solution to the problem.
The words I chose were designed specifically to deal with the two groups of offences in the Bill, locking on and tunnelling. Those offences differ from the other kinds of protest activities. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has reminded us of a lot of examples of these. The whole purpose of those conducting these activities is to disrupt. That is their method of making their views known. That is quite different from people who assemble with flags, shouting, singing and so on, or who walk in a procession as their method of making their views known. If you make your views known by disrupting, the position is that you cross a line.
That line was identified by the Court of Appeal in the Colston case. It used the words “minor or trivial”. If that kind of activity goes beyond what is minor or trivial, you lose the protection of proportionality available under the European Convention on Human Rights—you have moved to something different—because the activity you are conducting is deliberate and the consequences of what you have done in the exercise of that deliberate decision are properly described as more than minor.
I was looking for a definition of the threshold because I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that when you are dealing with those categories of offences, there is a point—at a fairly early stage, as the Court of Appeal is indicating—where it should be available to the police to stop the activity. Tunnelling, for example, is designed to inflict economic harm on the body that is conducting the railway. We are talking about HS2, which has parliamentary backing. To inflict economic harm should not be allowed to continue for any longer than a minor interference.
Locking on is the same thing. Once it reaches a stage of going beyond minor, the sooner the police are free to take the necessary action, the better. It is their judgment, but the point of my amendment was to identify a threshold. The problem with “significant”, which is a perfectly respectable word for describing a state of affairs, is that it does not define a threshold. It defines a state of affairs. The police need a threshold to be clearly identified, which my words were designed to do.
The problem, and it is part of our debate with each other, is that in legislation we cannot use algorithms or numbers. We are driven to use adjectives, which are quite malleable creatures. They have a shade of meaning, and some people have different views as to what words such as “significant” mean. I would say that once you move beyond “minor” you have reached something that is significant.
That is the point: it is a state of affairs that you have reached, whereas my wording is to identify exactly the stage at which the threshold is crossed. As I said last time, “more” is absolutely crucial. I can well understand that “minor” excites fear and alarms but, with great respect, I do not think that is really justified. “Minor” has to be given full weight. In my submission, it achieves the object that I was trying to achieve and which I think that the Government have now accepted. It is the difference between a state of affairs and a threshold. In the end, that is the crucial point.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, I thank the Government for Motion C—yes, I did say that. In very turbulent and polarised times in our country, it is a  real pleasure to be able to welcome it. Noble Lords will notice that there is a fairly minor tweak to the original amendment passed by your Lordships’ House. We said that a constable should not exercise powers for the principal purpose of preventing someone reporting, and the Government have replaced “principal purpose” with “sole purpose”. I for one am convinced that the precious and vital protection for journalists and others reporting on protests, rather than participating in them, is provided. The Minister wrote and said that they do not think that this is necessary but are doing it anyway. That is not ungracious. It is gracious, because I happen to think that this protection is vital. The Government disagree but they are doing it, so I am happy to thank them.
I remind noble Lords, as the Minister did, that the provision is in response to real cases: real journalists were arrested and detained last November, some for many hours, just for doing their job. The offence used when it was suggested that journalists were giving the oxygen of publicity to protesters was the fairly vague conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. While the Government have been consistent in their position that additional protection is unnecessary, no one at any stage of proceedings on the Bill could point to a single legislative provision on the current statute book that gives this protection. Therefore, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with this and responded, not least to what I think was the largest defeat that the Government suffered on the Bill last time.
I am particularly grateful to Charlotte Lynch, the LBC reporter who visited us last time, having experienced the really quite traumatic incident of being arrested, handcuffed, put in a police van and detained for seven hours. This causes her some anxiety even to this day. She carried on and reported on that experience, and that has been very important for future journalists in this country, I hope that noble Lords will agree.
I am grateful to the all-party group, Justice, and Tyrone Steele, who worked with us on this amendment. I am especially grateful to the five distinguished Conservative Members of your Lordships’ House, including the former governor of Hong Kong and a former leader of the Conservative Party, who did the very difficult thing of coming through the lobbies with Her Majesty’s Opposition. I give my absolute respect to them.
I am, of course, grateful to my noble friends, the Liberal Democrats and many Cross-Benchers who supported this vital protection. I give especial thanks to the co-signatories of the original journalists’ protection amendment, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It was a great comfort and support to have such a distinguished journalist and former newspaper editor on my side in this.
My enormous thanks also go to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. We disagree about some things, but not about this. In particular, I thank my co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, not only for co-signing this amendment and bringing his noble friends with him, but for a lifetime of public service in policing and in your Lordships’ House. He is the most diligent and distinguished face of the police  service in this country. When we reform that service, it will better reflect his values. That career of public service could not be better demonstrated than by him being here today, after suffering such unspeakable loss in recent weeks.
I do not want to take your Lordships’ time on the next group, so will say now that I support the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Coaker in the remarks that they will make about suspicionless stop and search. Stop and search is always difficult and challenging for police community relations, but suspicionless stop and search is positively toxic and not something that we should be increasing in these troubled times in our country.
Finally, I come to the difficult question of the meaning of “serious disruption”, not for the purposes of some offences, but for the whole Bill. We have the narrow policy question of what the threshold should be before a number of criminal offences and intrusive police powers impugned what would otherwise be totally peaceful and innocent dissent. That is the narrow question.
We also have a rather deeper and broader—almost philosophical—question of common sense and the English language. Is “serious” significant, as I believe, or simply more than minor? Is it a simple binary, like a child’s 18th birthday that turns them from a minor into someone who has majority; or is there a whole range of disruption that one can face in one’s life from something that is minor to something that is really quite a lot more than minor—that is significant?
This is a serious question and the threshold should be high. I am reminded of George Orwell’s famous essay “Politics and the English Language”—my favourite writing of his—in which he reminded us that distortion of language can quickly lead to abuses of power. This is a Public Order Bill and this ought to be a very serious threshold. However, if noble Lords prefer their literature to be accompanied by music, I will invoke not George Orwell but Cole Porter:
“There’s no love song finer, but how strange the change from major to minor”.
I urge all noble Lords who care about these things, who take a bipartisan approach to fundamental rights and freedoms in our country, as those distinguished five Conservatives did last time, to support Motion A1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I have been reflecting on the speeches which we have just heard. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and his point about the threshold, I have been thinking about what would be more than minor that was not significant. Looking at the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, gave, it seems to me that if one discovered people tunnelling under an area that was going to be HS2, that is not only more than minor; my goodness me, it seems to me to be significant. I was also thinking about the closing of four or five motorways. So far as I am concerned, that seems to be both more than minor and significant. I just wonder, rather hesitantly, whether we are arguing about a position where the difference between “more than minor” and “significant” is extremely small. I cannot at the moment think of a  word that I would use that was more than minor but not significant. That is where I stand—a slightly different position, I confess, from what I said on the last occasion.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I hope I do not cause offence here, but I disagree strongly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I shall give the House a few words that would be more than minor but less than significant: it could be “reasonable”, “measured, “limited” or “tolerable”. There are all sorts of stages between “more than minor” and “significant”. As a veteran protester, I have probably passed quite a few red lines in the past, although I have never committed violence—so far.
I turn to Motion A1. Obviously I am upset, along with other noble Lords, I hope, at the fact that the other place immediately whips out all our good work and indeed our hard work. We spend time reading the Bill and thinking about it, which obviously the majority of people in the other place do not; they simply do whatever the Government tell them. I feel that the Government are trying to stop protest of virtually every kind—almost any protest imaginable—and that is so deeply oppressive that I could not possibly support it, so I wholeheartedly support Motion A1.
If the House will indulge me, I will mention the other two Motions as well so that I speak only once. I am horrified by Motion B2. I regret that Labour feels it cannot support Motion B1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Sitting here, I have been thinking that I would vote against Motion B2, but that is probably too difficult. I do not even think I can abstain, so I think I am going to vote for it—but it will be through gritted teeth as it goes against all my libertarian views, and I am really annoyed with Labour for putting it in.
To finish on an upbeat note, there is Motion C. The Government make endless bad decisions. We are wallowing in an ocean of bad decisions nationally because of this Government, and some extremely unpleasant scenarios, with poverty and deprivation, are playing out because of them. But here they have done the right thing. It is incredible that the Government have come back with not just something that we generally asked for but with a slightly improved version of the Lords amendment, which I have to thank them for and say “Well done”—if that does not sound too patronising, or matronising. It is a win for civil liberties and the right of the public to be informed about protest and dissent.
On a final note, I have been saying that I am the mother of a journalist. That is a slight twist of the truth, because actually I am the mother of an editor, and I just know that she will be absolutely delighted with what the Government have done today.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, I declare an interest: I generally pay my mortgage by debating the difference between “significant” and “more than minor”, so I am on very familiar territory.
The problem with the word “significant” is this: what is the opposite of significant? It is insignificant. There is therefore a constant debate in the courts when something, generally a contract, is said to be significant. Does it mean substantial—that is, quite a lot—or does  it mean not insignificant, in other words more than de minimis? That is the problem with a word such as “significant”. For those reasons, I respectfully endorse the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. We need a test here that is easy to apply.
Elsewhere in the law, we have the concept of significant risk. Of course, that is even more difficult, because there you are talking about risk—something that might happen—whereas here, in Motion 1A, we are talking about something that has happened or is happening. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked what the difference was between “more than minor” and “significant”. In the Court of Appeal case of R v Lang, Lady Justice Rose, who is now in the Supreme Court, said in her judgment:
“The risk identified must be significant. This is a higher threshold than mere possibility of occurrence”—
that is, a risk case—
“and in our view can be taken to mean … ‘noteworthy, of considerable amount or importance’”.
Even in that definition, there is a difference, I would suggest, between “noteworthy” and “of considerable amount”—and that is in the context of a risk, not something that is actually happening.
I would strongly endorse the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. What we are dealing with here is not a risk; it is something that is actually happening. We do not want a test of “reasonable” or “tolerable”, where it is all in the eye of the beholder. We need a test where you can see it and you know whether it exists or not, and I would suggest that, for those reasons, “more than minor” really hits the nail on the head.

Lord Faulks: My Lords, I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord has just said. The House may remember that the whole question of the definition of “serious disruption” emanated in part from a recommendation of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I supported an amendment put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I think the Opposition then accepted that it would be useful to define “serious disruption”. So, there was a measure of agreement, and what we were concerned with was where the threshold lay.
It is clear that the amendment the Government are seeking to put into the Bill is lawful. There had been some doubt, but various decisions, including the decision on Ziegler and the subsequent decision in the Northern Ireland case, show that this is well within the legality required by the European Court of Human Rights. The question is: how do you balance the undoubted right to demonstrate—I do not think there is any doubt that everybody in this House accepts the fundamental importance of that right—against the rights of others to go about their business, to go to hospital, to go to school and to do all the other important things? They must put up with inconvenience, but whether their lives should be seriously disrupted is a different question.
What worries me about the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is that, for example, it would require there to be a “prolonged disruption” before we get to the stage that an offence has been  committed or, more realistically, that the police can do anything about it. Imprecision in adjectives is of course inevitable, but “prolonged” worries me. We have to achieve a difficult balance in this legislation, and it seems to me that that put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is the right one.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, one thing that is significant is when the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, congratulates the Government. I think that is a significant and not minor moment. But she was right to do so; the importance of journalistic freedom cannot be overestimated, and I would like to thank the noble Lords who put that amendment forward on this Bill and turned something which has been discomfiting into something positive at the end of it all. So that is very positive.
I also want to note that, when I was considering how I was going to intervene today, I actually said to colleagues that it was terrible that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would not be with us, because I would have been relying on him to give us a steer. Then I walked in and he was in his place, and I would like to pay tribute to his courage for being here and the reassurance it gives many of us. That really takes some courage.
On the substantive point, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, did us a great service when he spent his weekend not demonstrating but looking at everybody else’s demonstrations on an average weekend, as it were, and laying them out for us. They were not particularly big, glamorous or headline-grabbing demonstrations, but all of them undoubtedly caused disruption to the people in the local area, in the way that he explained, and blocked roads quite substantially.
That is important because, throughout the discussions on this Bill, it has always felt as though we have had in our sights the likes of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, explained well that their aim is to disrupt, not even to protest. That is their tactic and their raison d’être. It has caused a lot of problems for me as somebody who supports the right to protest very strongly, and it has certainly aggravated the British public in all sorts of ways.
The reason the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was so useful was that it remembered the laws of unintended consequences. I say to the Government that those groups are not the only people who are going to be caught up by this law, which is why I would like us to make the threshold higher. The Government will not always be the Government—if we are talking about things being “prolonged”, it might not be that long. There will be all sorts of different people out on streets protesting. Sometimes it might even involve members of the Government at the moment and their supporters.
All the protests the noble Lord described covered all types of members of the British public who felt the need to take to the streets one way or another. They are voters of all parties and voters of none. They might well be disruptive, but they are certainly not using disruption as a tactic. My concern, straightforwardly, is that they are not criminalised by this law in an  unintended way because we had one group of protesters in mind and forgot the wide variety of protesters who support all parties across the board. I anticipate there will be more protesters in turbulent times ahead.
My final point on Motion A1 is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, when you are making laws, you cannot use algorithms or numbers, so you are using words. We are having an argument about words. It is tricky and I cannot pretend that, when I hear the noble and learned Lords speak, I always understand the way language is understood by courts. However, I was thinking about how language might be understood by the police. They are the people who will potentially, as has already been explained, look at a bunch of tractors or what have you and say, “That is capable of causing disruption which is more than minor”. This seems to be a much lower threshold than thinking it will cause “significant” disruption. I would like the word “significant” there so that the police pause and do not just say “It’s more than minor: let’s stop it”. They should pause and think that something has to be quite serious. Is that not the way the language will be understood? As a consequence—maybe I am wrong, and they are all legal scholars—my fear is that they will read those words and see it in a particular way. Therefore, there will be the unintended consequences of sweeping up people who, after all, are democratically demonstrating.
Finally—because I realise that this is what is done and so that I do not speak on Motion D—despite supporting wholeheartedly the Labour amendment, I am disappointed with Motion D1 from the Labour Party. I think I understand what is meant by conduct which is
“frivolous or vexatious, beyond a genuine expression of their right to protest.”
However, it seems to be an unnecessary concession and I will find it very hard to vote for. Beyond that I urge everyone to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in this group.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, I will be very brief. I want to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for the way in which he reacted to what I will always refer to as the Charlotte Lynch amendment. It was moved very elegantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the Government listened.
This amendment is an illustration of the value of your Lordships’ House and of the fact that there is no point or purpose to your Lordships’ House unless, from time to time, the Government are indeed defeated, are obliged to take a very serious view of a serious defeat and react accordingly. My noble friend has reacted accordingly and graciously, and, for that reason, I am extremely grateful that a most important amendment is now part of a very important Bill.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before I start, I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House, the doorkeepers, the attendants, the security and the police officers, who have shown such kindness towards me following the sudden, unexpected and so far unexplained death of my husband. I am very grateful.
As the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have explained, the definition of “serious disruption” underpins the entire Public Order Bill. It is an element of many of the new offences and the trigger for the use of new draconian police powers, which we will debate in the next two groups. The police asked for clarity, as there was no definition of “serious disruption” in the Bill that originally came to us from the other place, and we joined forces with His Majesty’s Official Opposition to provide a reasoned and reasonable definition of “serious disruption” that gave clear guidance to the police—Lords Amendment 1—which was agreed by this House. The Commons disagreed with our amendment and substituted Amendment 1A as an amendment in lieu.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, about the problem with ambiguity around the word “significant”, the fact is that the original amendment this House passed had examples clearly explaining to the police what we meant, so that ambiguity was not there in the original amendment passed by this House.
Instead of defining “serious disruption” as causing
“significant harm to persons, organisations or the life of the community”,
which would include, for example, preventing an ambulance taking a patient to a hospital, the Government have substituted, as we have heard,
“more than a minor degree”
for “significant harm”. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and to address the concerns of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I will repeat what I said on Report: on a spectrum of seriousness, “minor” is at one end and “serious” is at the other. I say that as a former police officer speaking about how the police might interpret the legislation. For example, a minor injury is a reddening of the skin, and a serious injury is a broken limb or inflicting a fatal injury. My interpretation, as a former police officer, of what is being said in the Bill is that disrupting to
“more than a minor degree”
cannot reasonably be said to be “serious disruption”; it is far too low a threshold. While I understand that the noble and learned Lord wanted to establish a threshold—the exact point at which the law would be broken—our argument is that that point is far too low. We therefore support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and we will support him if he decides to divide the House on his Motion A1.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in saying that I am grateful to the Minister for Amendment 17A, mentioned in Motion C, which we support. It is right to protect observers of protests from being prevented from carrying out their work by the police.
Finally, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Fox of Buckley, for their kind words about my public service, but I reassure the House that this is not my valedictory speech.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, again, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this debate and for the scrutiny they continue to bring to bear on these important measures.
Before I get on to the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the Government’s intentions for Section 73 of the PCSC Act. For the benefit of the House, Sections 73 and 74 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act contain delegated powers which allow the Secretary of State to amend the definitions of
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
and
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession”
for the purpose of Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The police have the ability to place necessary and proportionate restrictions on public assemblies and processions to prevent these harms from occurring. The Government are always looking to protect the public from harm, including unjustifiable disruption, and we are open to using all the tools available to do so. However, and to be clear, these regulation-making powers do not interfere with the Public Order Bill currently being debated. They do not permit this or any future Government to make changes to the meaning of “serious disruption” in this Bill.
I have set out clearly the arguments in defence of the Government’s Amendment 1A and why I believe this establishes an appropriate threshold for “serious disruption”. I think it is worth pointing out, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, reminded us, that that threshold applies to the offences in the Bill—locking on, tunnelling, and so on.
I will not detain the House for longer than necessary, not least because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson have put this much more eloquently than I can. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to withdraw his Motion and hope that your Lordships will support the Government’s Amendment 1A to ensure that both the police and the courts have this appropriate threshold, which strikes the right balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of the public.
I think this debate has highlighted the point that ultimately it will be for the police and the courts to assess whether an individual’s acts are in scope. Any threshold will inherently be somewhat subjective and there is no way around this, as I think my noble friend Lord Wolfson pointed out. This term provides a reference point for the police and courts when determining whether one’s actions exceed the protections of the ECHR, and it is based in case law.
Finally, I will touch on government Amendment 17A. I hope noble Lords are wholly satisfied and I appreciate the indications that they are. The Government have accepted the principle of Amendment 17, while adding a clarification. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—and, of course, others—for her not insignificant thanks.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for listening, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for the amendment on journalists. The Government are to be congratulated for moving on that and for responding to people’s very real concerns.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for saying that there is a genuine attempt within this Chamber to deal with what is clearly quite a difficult issue, with genuine differences between people. It has been well argued and well debated. That has never been an issue. There is an issue about where the threshold is but there has never been an issue about the genuine nature of that and I welcome his point.
I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and many other noble Lords practised in the law for my speed course in trying to understand what some aspects of it mean. I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and indeed by the Minister in his response just now, goes to the heart of it. The Minister said—and I have not got this completely right so I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—that in the end there will be an element of subjectivity in the police and the courts.
That is the very point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. If there is an element of subjectivity, if a police officer or Vernon Coaker is walking down the street and you said that something is “significant”, I would see that as more serious than something that is “more than minor”. I cannot argue it with all the case law that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, used. I cannot use the legal terminology that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and many others would use. But I absolutely defy anybody to prove to me that 130,000, or however many there are, police officers across our country would not see “more than minor” as a lower threshold than “significant”. I just do not believe it.
The Minister himself said that there would be subjectivity. Of course, there will be subjectivity, which is why I raised the examples that I did. The Government have panicked. It was outrageous what happened with Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion—and none of us supported the disruption caused by that. Many of us in this Chamber asked why the police were not using the powers on obstruction that they had and quickly sorting it out by using those powers. They should have had the confidence to use them and to know that this Chamber and the other place would be behind them, sorting those protesters out and dealing with the issue in the way it should have been done.
The Government’s response through the Public Order Bill and some of these measures will impact on people who should not be impacted on in any way, especially if you have a definition of “more than minor”. A police officer will go to those people who are driving tractors and protesting about milk, they will go to people slowing lorries down on the motorway because of fuel prices, and they will go to parents blocking roads because of school playgrounds—they absolutely will. If people start getting cross, as they inevitably will, the police will say, “Well, this is more than minor”, and do something about it—rather than what they would do if they had a threshold of “significant”. That will be the practical reality of the legislation that this Government are asking this Chamber to pass, supported by the other place. It is simply not tenable, and simply not good legislation; it will have consequences that the Government do not intend for it.
There was one thing on which I disagreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, when he talked about disruption. I have not been on many protests that have not caused disruption, and I suspect that not many noble Lords have been on protests that have not caused some sort of disruption. I do not want to be controversial, but sometimes the point is to cause some disruption—that is the absolute point. I am sure that there are many noble Lords, not just behind me but on other Benches, who have been on demonstrations and protests and have caused disruption. The argument is over whether that is serious disruption—and according to the Bill it has to be serious; well, “more than minor” —whereas I am saying that it should be “significant”. At the end of the day, that is the point of difference between us.
All I say in closing is that the police, in policing the Public Order Act, as it will become, will treat “more than minor” at a much lower level in dealing with protests than they would if “significant” was in the Bill. For me, that trumps any arguments of case law or that the courts will have problems defining it. The courts always have problems defining things, and that is why, in the end, you have courts, because they will use their best judgment to define it—but I would rather they had to define “significant” than “more than minor” in dealing with protests. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 222, Noes 233.

Motion A1 disagreed.
Motion A agreed.

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock: Before I call Motion B, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the revised version of Motion B2, published today on a supplementary sheet. The difference is that Amendment 6E has been added.

Motion B

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 36 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A and 36A.
6A: Because it is appropriate for the police to be able to exercise the stop and search powers contained in the clause removed by the Lords Amendment.
7A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 6 to which the Commons disagree.
8A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 6 to which the Commons disagree.
9A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 6 to which the Commons disagree.
36A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 6 to which the Commons disagree.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, your Lordships’ Amendment 6 and the related consequential amendments remove the power to stop and search without suspicion from the Bill. While I recognise the strength of feeling expressed by noble Lords when considering these amendments during Report, the Government cannot accept the removal of the suspicionless stop and search powers from the Bill. The other place has also disagreed to these amendments for their reasons 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A and 36A. I therefore respectfully encourage the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to reflect on Motion B1, which seeks to overturn this wholly and which I do not think appropriate.
Suspicionless stop and search is a vital tool used to crack down on crime and protect communities, and we see it as entirely appropriate that these measures be extended to tackle highly disruptive protest offences. These are much needed proactive powers. Large protests are fast-paced environments where it is difficult for the police to reach the level of suspicion required for a suspicion-led search. The police should not have so sit by idly where there is a risk that someone will commit a criminal offence, and this is why suspicionless stop and search powers are necessary.
This view is shared HMICFRS, which found that suspicionless search powers would act as a deterrent and help prevent disruption and keep people safe. I want to be clear that the power to conduct a suspicionless search does not mean that anyone at a protest will be at risk of being searched without suspicion. The vast majority of protests in this country are peaceful and non-disruptive. These powers will be used only in the exceptional circumstances where it is likely that people at a protest will go on to commit criminal offences that cause serious disruption to others.
I also want to assure your Lordships, as I have sought to do throughout the passage of this Bill, that the safeguards on existing stop and search powers will apply to these powers, both for suspicion-led and suspicionless stop and search, and that includes body-worn video and PACE codes of practice. The Home Office also publishes extensive data on the use of stop and search to drive transparency. We expect the police to operate in a legitimate, fair and transparent manner, which includes decisions surrounding their use of this power.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has tabled Motion B2. I want to remind the House that the power to conduct a suspicionless stop and search in a public order context will only be used in limited cases where a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes that protest-related offences will occur and therefore authorises its use. In such cases, suspicionless stop and searches are limited to a specified locality for a specified period, but no longer than 24 hours. This can be extended for a further 24 hours to a maximum of 48 hours by an officer of or above the rank of superintendent, but it cannot be in place for more than 48 hours.
The reason why we have set out the thresholds and time limitations in this way is that we wanted to keep the legislation as consistent as possible for officers who will be using suspicionless stop and search powers. The amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would set a higher authorisation threshold for suspicionless searches than if officers are searching for a weapon, and limit the initial window that officers would have to use these powers, which has the potential to confuse officers with the well-established Section 60 legislation that we have discussed previously.
Suspicionless stop and search can be authorised only if specific protest-related offences are likely to be committed. These are the offences in this Bill and the offences of obstructing the highway and public nuisance. As the offence of public nuisance is committed so frequently by those who use disruption as a protest tactic, it is nonsensical to remove it from the list of relevant offences. Doing so would completely undermine this power.
The Government recognise that communication is a fundamental element of building trust and confidence between the force and the community it serves. As good practice, most forces already communicate their Section 60 authorisations, and I know that communities appreciate knowing detail on the geographical area, time limits and the background of the issue. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the final proposed new subsection in the proposed amendment, which would establish in statute a requirement for the force to communicate when the powers are used, I do not think we want to introduce an inconsistency between the Section 60 legislation framework, which does not carry a communication requirement, and the proposed powers in the Bill. I therefore ask that your Lordships’ House does not insist on these amendments.

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock: I must inform the House that if Motion B1 is agreed to, I cannot call Motion B2 by reason of pre-emption.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Lord Paddick: Moved by Lord Paddick
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 36.”

Lord Paddick: My Lords, police stop and search is an intrusive power that is used disproportionately against visible minorities. As I said on Report, you are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police if you are black than if you are white if suspicion is required, and 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched if no suspicion is required. The facts show that the police have been targeting black people for stop and search, the overwhelming majority of those stopped and searched having done nothing wrong.
In 2020, 25% of eligible black people in the UK were not registered to vote, compared with 17% of eligible white people. Black people, even more than the population as a whole, have little or no confidence that the political system represents them. Protest is therefore more important to them than the population as a  whole. Giving the police powers to stop and search in connection with protests will deter black people from exercising their human rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. We cannot and will not support the inclusion of new stop and search powers for the police in connection with protests for these reasons, whether with or without suspicion.
However, at this stage of the Bill, if this House again insisted on removing stop and search without suspicion from the Bill the other place would have to move. That is something that many noble Lords around the House, for constitutional reasons, would be reluctant to do. I therefore do not intend to test the opinion of the House on my Motion B1.
On the basis that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, we support Motion B2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which, as he will no doubt explain, would restrict the circumstances in which the police can invoke stop and search without suspicion in relation to protest. We will support the noble Lord should he divide the House. I beg to move.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I will speak primarily to my Motion B2, which I will move and seek to test the opinion of the House on. In doing so, I very much agree with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. We have arrived at a place where I and, I suspect, many in this Chamber would not wish to be. In other words, frankly, suspicionless stop and search should not be in the Bill.
We tried to take Clause 11 out. The Government reinserted it. We have opposed suspicionless stop and search throughout the passage of the Bill—and still do. The practical and pragmatic reality is what to do about it. My Motion B2 tries to restrict the use of suspicionless stop and search and to ensure that there is at least greater proportionality within it. Is that totally where I want to be? No. Is that a brilliantly principled position where I go down to glorious defeat? No. Is it the practical, political reality of where we are? I would argue yes. That is why I am moving Motion B2, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and all Members will know from our previous debates, I fundamentally believe that Clause 11 should not be in the Bill.
I do not want to speak for long, but this point deserves repeating. How has it come to the point where His Majesty’s Government seek to introduce suspicionless stop and search for protest-related offences? Every other debate on suspicionless stop and search has concerned the most serious circumstances—either to try to prevent people shooting, stabbing or murdering one another, or to prevent terrorism. Even in those circumstances, there has been significant debate both in the other place and here about the proportionality of one of the most significant powers that we can give to our police officers.
Each and every noble Lord can only imagine walking down the street to be stopped by a police officer and searched without reason. As relatively mature individuals, we appreciate that in no circumstances would the police do this if there was not good reason, even if we did not realise it, but I suspect that even many of us would object to it. But certainly, as the noble Lord,  Lord Paddick, rightly reminded us, if you are young and black, young and in an ethnic minority, or young in a disadvantaged community where there is already distrust between police and public, one can only imagine the circumstances. Why are we doing it? It is because of protests. It is completely and utterly disproportionate and over the top. It is another of the panicked responses in this Bill to the protests by Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. On numerous occasions, we have said those were of course unacceptable, but let us not undermine one of the fundamental democratic principles of this country to go about one’s business without interference in order to try to deal with that. How on earth is that proportionate or something the Government would wish to do? It is simply not the case.
Ideally, I would wish to take Clause 11 out of the Bill, by my Motion B2 recognises where we are. There may be disappointment about me or about the position which I think is correct to have arrived at, but I hope that people at least understand why I have arrived at that point. I would do anything to get rid of Clause 11, and I have tried to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I—and many others—have failed. The Government have not shifted. I have tabled a reasonable amendment. If the Government will not shift on suspicionless stop and search and are keeping it in the Bill, at least let them restrict it, narrow the scope or do something to make it less disproportionate.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, paraded as a great thing the inclusion of the following words in Clause 11:
“This section applies if a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes”.
Even if they want Clause 11, an inspector is not a senior enough rank to do that. We can argue whether chief superintendent is a senior enough rank. I am sure there are serving police officers who would say, “No, that is not consistent”—as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has done—“It is not consistent with X; it should be an assistant chief constable, a commander or whatever.” I say to the Chamber that the principle I am putting forward in my amendment is that a very senior police officer needs to make that decision.
I am narrowing the scope of Clause 11 by taking out subsection (1)(ii), which deals with intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance. That does not prevent the stop and search power of a police officer who has reasonable suspicion. If they reasonably believe something, the police officer can stop anyone. This is trying to narrow the scope by saying, “Do not do it if there is no suspicion. Do not do it if you just think something has happened.” It will not be a load of people who look like me who get stopped and searched. That is why I have done that.
On reducing the time from 24 to 12 hours, someone said to me that it should have been 10 hours. I have not done a scientific survey to come up with 12. My point is that I want to restrict its scope, so I propose reducing 24 to 12. Somebody may say it should be six, it should be four—I do not know—but at least it would restrict the scope, which is what I have done.
Clause 11(5), which is where there is a revised memorandum because of a miscommunication, states:
“If it appears to a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent that it is necessary”
for renewal of the suspicionless stop and search area. The Government are saying that it should be a super- intendent; I am saying it should be a chief superintendent. You can argue that it should be an assistant chief constable. My point is that for renewal, I do not think that superintendent is a significant enough rank; it should be higher. That may indeed be an assistant chief constable, but I have just added the word “chief” to make it a chief superintendent.
To be fair, the Minister has been good enough to say that he sort of agrees with Amendment 6F, which states:
“The chief superintendent must take reasonable steps.”
That is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, gave me the idea by saying that from his policing experience one thing he thought was a problem, whatever you think of suspicionless stop and search, is making sure that the public are aware of what you are doing. That is difficult. I am not saying it is easy or how you do it, but there should be an attempt to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that some police forces do it and there is some good practice. I say: put it in the Bill and make it a statutory requirement that, if the police are to use one of the most draconian powers we give them, they must take all “reasonable” steps to inform the public of what is going on.
We can only imagine it, when the Public Order Bill becomes an Act and, outside this place, there have been protests and the Government or the police disagree with them because they are more than minor. A “more than minor” disruption occurs and, alongside that, we get suspicionless stop and search, because we have chucked out my amendment to make it “significant” and it is just “more than minor”. The police think, “It is more than minor disruption; we had better have suspicionless stop and search” and introduce it around Parliament. MPs, Peers, members of staff, members of the police coming into work, catering staff and others could all be subject to search without suspicion. How would you feel? How would I feel?
Honestly, it is a completely and utterly disproportionate clause. Really, it should be wiped out of the Bill, but we have failed; the Government will not listen. Perhaps they will listen to Motion B2 and at least we will have some more proportionality in it, but we will see. With that, I beg to move.

Lord Hogan-Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has not disappointed me. I am sorry for the Lib Dems and Labour that they have not tested the opinion of the House on Clause 11, although I understand entirely why: constitutionally, it is fairly straightforward. What the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said is exactly correct: stop and search without cause can be useful when there are dangerous conditions. We have had Section 44 of the Terrorism Act to protect certain places, so that rather than going through a great process of “Can I look in your jacket?” and all the rest of it, at Parliament, a nuclear defence establishment or wherever you happen to be, you could search without cause. Now, under Section 60 of the Public Order Act, you can stop and search without cause where there has been serious violence; when a senior officer declares it for a certain period of time, you can stop and search without cause.
There are two reasons for doing it. The principal reason is to deter—to stop the carrying of knives in a certain place—and the other is to detect, if somebody is silly enough to carry on doing it. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, picked up, for which I am grateful, my view is that communicating to the public, at the point at which they enter an area, that they are liable to be stopped and searched without cause can help the conversation. This is never easy when you are a police officer because you have to say to someone, “I am going to stop and search without cause”, which causes you two problems: “Why did you stop me?” and “Why do you want to search me?”. Your short answer is, “I don’t know. I am trying to deter other people if you have done nothing wrong.” It can be useful at the most dangerous times if it is limited by time and properly monitored.
When people are protesting in a democracy, it is quite often when they are at their most emotional and they can get angry. They do not want the police to interfere in that at all. Usually, they are people who have never had any contact with the police in any way, so it really leaves the police officer in a pretty vulnerable place. These are generally the people you want to keep onside, not the criminals you have to challenge because that is what the law says.
It is a contentious power and we should be really careful before we give them that power, but not because I think the police are waiting to go out and have a go at people. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, there have been times—I acknowledge this—when the power has been disproportionately used against minorities, particularly in this city. That history alone is a reason why I would be very careful, particularly in London; this is the place where this power is most likely to be used, because people will be protesting outside Parliament. Of course, they will be protesting in other places as well, but this place is probably more likely than most to see it used as a power and to be challenged to be able to use it.
I accept that it will not go any further. The changes proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, are reasonable attempts to restrict it. I worry a little about the practicality of 12 hours, as opposed to 24. Quite often people start travelling, particularly to London, at very early hours, usually by coaches or however they travel. That could be at 4 am if you are going to have the stop and search power. They do not usually leave the street until probably 6 pm to 8 pm, so it is getting a bit tight. You may say that we do not want it to be allowed to be used at all, but if you are going to have it, it has to be practical, and 24 hours is probably more sensible.
I say this again about some senior officer colleagues: you cannot always get hold of chief superintendents 24 hours a day. You are supposed to be able to, but they are not quite as available as inspectors, who are always there. I have seen at least one or two people who have had that experience in the past. They are the ones who are always there, 24 hours a day. They are the senior people, particularly around the rest of the country—probably less so in London—whom you would probably be able to get hold of to exercise the power. For that reason, I dispute using the chief superintendent, but I understand why that proposal was made.

Lord Deben: My Lords, it would be a great mistake for us to ignore the views that have just been put before us. I was one of those who did not want this clause at all, because I find the definition of stopping people without suspicion an extremely difficult one. There must be few occasions on which a policeman cannot claim that he has some suspicion when he stops a person. The fact that he cannot even claim that seems to be a very curious position to be in.
I have taken seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about certain circumstances—not those referred to in the Bill but other circumstances where this has proved to be necessary—but it would be very dangerous for this House to accept, unamended, what the other House has passed back to us. I could also argue about the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has tabled, but they do begin to bring this into a much more proportionate situation. I say to my Conservative colleagues that we have to be very careful, as what is supposed to be the party of law and order, not to change the law in such a way that sections of the community increasingly find it unacceptable.
I have four law-abiding children—they are not children now—who were brought up in London during the week. They were all treated by the police in a way that no one in this House would like to have known, and they were white, reasonably well dressed and certainly well behaved. I want this House to realise that when you are our age, these things do not affect you. Although it is, very importantly, those of ethnic minorities, it is also young people. This society has to show young people that we recognise and welcome them, and that we do not have laws that disproportionately and unnecessarily affect them.
I beg of this House to support these amendments to make a sign to people that we have taken this Bill seriously and are not prepared to give the police these powers without very clear definitions and a reminder that they should be used only in circumstances where they genuinely need to stop without suspicion. I would also like the Minister to explain a single circumstance when it would be impossible to stop somebody without this, because I do not believe you would stop somebody unless you had some sort of suspicion.

Lord Sentamu: My Lords, I declare an interest because I am going to follow the noble Lord in talking about young people. I am the president of the YMCA. A lot of those young people would have been caught up in the language the noble Lord referred to. I find it extraordinary.
When I was Bishop of Stepney, I was stopped and searched. The police officer who stopped me and searched my car asked me who I was. When I said that I was a bishop, he did not believe me. He then saw my dog collar and said, “Whoops”. The matter was of course taken up by the then leader of the city police. Thankfully, the gentleman acknowledged that it was him.
It is not just young people. It is not just black people. Your Lordships have heard the noble Lord, Lord Deben, telling us about his children. The power to stop and search somebody without a very clear definition gives me a lot of bother. I am a believer, and I love belief. The Bill says that the section of powers
“to stop and search without suspicion … applies if a police officer … reasonably believes”,
but how do you work that out? Was it in your head? Was it in your heart? Was it in the things you had read or seen on television? Friends, the word “belief” is so dangerous. The old “reasonable grounds for suspecting” is in there too. I would rather this section of the Bill did not exist.
I was on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. I am sorry to mention it because the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, is in her place. We went around the country, and people had been stopped and searched so many times when the police did not have reasonable grounds to suspect them yet believed they were about to commit a crime.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry gives a definition of the grounds on which you can suspect. The Bill is about public order and, therefore, some of the exceptions that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was talking about cannot be extended to it. Those are there, but they are not for this Bill. Do noble Lords seriously want a police officer to “reasonably believe” and then do it? How will you question that? They will simply say, “I believed it”. That cannot be good for a country of this kind.
I want noble Lords to read the Stephen Lawrence inquiry again—about the failures of the different ranks. Inspectors did not do too well during our inquiry. They are the de facto junior rank. I hear again that there are not many superintendents about. If the Bill is built on that, you need a much higher rank of police officer, not an inspector. If not many are about and this is what the Government want to do, increase the role of the chief superintendent to deliver this clause, which I think is unnecessary.
My dear friends, it is for those reasons: for the many young people of YMCA, and many like them who would have to think twice before going on a demonstration. For a country that believes that there is a right to protest—not a right to violence—you are really cutting them off. If the Minister really insists that this must go in, then the rank of a chief superintendent is a must. A police officer acting on the grounds of their beliefs, however reasonable they may be, is not a protection for the police officer or for the person being stopped and searched.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, I lived in Notting Hill for many years, near All Saints Road, on the route of the carnival. During the carnival especially, it was a joy to often see police officers entering into the spirit and dancing. That was absolutely wonderful. We must not paint this one way or the other. But, more often than not, I saw examples, especially not during carnival, where stop and search was used in an incredibly provocative way. Having lived there for many years, I would say that there was no more socially divisive thing about policing than stop and search. I beg noble Lords to think very carefully about inflaming this position.
As I said, I met many police officers who behaved wonderfully, but there were and still are some who stop and search far too often and, as we have heard, it is on black people on the whole. If we want a socially cohesive society, we must not make laws that threaten and may undo that. I would really counsel caution about  this. Anything that can help us not go too far, such as the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, should be supported.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I will intervene very briefly to make two points. I spent about eight years overseeing police work on counterterrorism in London and more generally. The use of the Section 44 power, which gives the police the power to stop without suspicion, was one that most people, when they thought about it, would say was acceptable: they understood that they were in an area where there was an obvious terrorist target and heightened concern.
When that power was exercised, was it without controversy? I am afraid that the answer is no. There was enormous resentment towards it, precisely because of the issues about disproportionality that have already been referred to and the complications that ensued from that.
That was in circumstances when most people might understand it, when they had it quietly explained to them—which does not usually happen during the course of a normal stop and search—that, “We’re stopping you, because we’re in this area, you are close to this and we are stopping people at random, just to make sure that they are not carrying explosives or a bomb”. But this is about circumstances where people are engaging in a demonstration or exercising their civil rights. That is of a completely different order and what makes this disproportionate.
My second point may sound trivial by comparison. We have had the point made about what rank of officer should look at this. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it might be quite difficult to find a chief superintendent at the right moment. All I would say is, if this is a matter of such seriousness that we are being asked to approve these extraordinary, disproportionate powers, then there should be a chief superintendent or people of equivalent rank overseeing and supervising what is happening.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that he refers to the Terrorism Act power of stop and search. Of course, Section 44 is now replaced by Section 47A, which adopts a similar model to Clause 11. Has the noble Lord noticed and does he have any comment on the provision that the power to authorise no-suspicion stop and search under Section 47A, which can be exercised only when there is a reasonable suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place, may be taken only by a senior police officer—in other words, a commander or an assistant chief constable?

Lord Harris of Haringey: The noble Lord interrupted me before I sat down, although I regarded myself as having sat down. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is absolutely correct. The reason Section 44 was changed was because of the concerns that I have expressed. The conditions on that, in circumstances when most sensible people would regard it as appropriate, perhaps, to have in your back pocket the power to stop without suspicion, were tightened in a way which this Bill would not allow.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have partaken in another fruitful debate. It has long been the Government’s view that suspicionless stop and search powers are necessary and much-needed proactive powers for tackling highly disruptive protest offences. This view remains unchanged.
I will endeavour to answer some of the points that were raised. First, on why, in its report into the policing of protests HMICFRS concluded:
“On balance, our view is that, with appropriate guidance and robust and effective safeguards, the proposed stop and search powers would have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe”.
It is worth reiterating that last point “making the public safe”.
On the disproportionate use of the powers with people of colour, nobody should be stopped and searched because of their race. Extensive safeguards, such as statutory codes of practice and body-worn video exist to ensure that this does not happen. The Home Office publishes extensive data on police use of stop and search in the interests of transparency and will expand this publication to the use of the new powers provided for in this Bill.
On the subject that was just under discussion about the appropriate level of officer who may authorise a suspicionless stop and search, I take the points that noble Lords have made about Section 47A, but this replicates existing powers within Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as I said in my opening remarks. Wherever possible, to ensure consistency, officers of inspector or higher may give an authorisation for up to 24 hours. Any extension must be made by an officer of superintendent rank or higher and no authorisation can last for more than 48 hours.
With regard to the geographical extent of a no-reasonable-suspicion stop and search order, it is for police forces to determine how and, indeed, whether to communicate the geographical extent of a search order under Section 60. This will also be the case for the new suspicionless powers in the Bill. Forces are no longer required to communicate that a Section 60 order is in place, but many continue to do so, where they judge it operationally feasible. Obviously, that in itself helps to deter criminals and enhance community trust and confidence. It is common for forces to use their social media channels or websites to communicate the extent of a Section 60 order.
I do not think there is a great deal more I can usefully say or add. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, not to press their amendments.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his comprehensive and convincing explanation of his Motion B2, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, who, from his personal experience and from the experience of the people he works with and has talked to and whose experiences he has shared, has said that we should listen very carefully. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who feels that Clause 11 should  not be part of the Bill but, regrettably, as I said before, probably accepts, as do I, that constitutionally we cannot take it out at this point.
On the issue of giving notice being problematic, the Metropolitan Police gives notice of where and when Section 60 stop and search provisions are in place. It does so via Twitter; I have seen it do so. It might also do it by other means that I do not know about, but it is possible, and what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is suggesting is therefore workable and practical.
We should not forget that Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was designed originally not for the police to impose at short notice by a relatively junior officer when someone got stabbed but to prevent gangs of football supporters arming themselves to beat each other up at a prearranged meeting using weapons. That is what it was originally intended for, but we have had mission creep so that it is now used regularly—although I have to give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because during his time as commissioner the use of Section 60 by the Metropolitan Police reduced significantly compared with how it was being used before.
The noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Harris of Haringey, talked about Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about it being used to protect Parliament or nuclear installations. The reason the Conservative Government repealed Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is that the Metropolitan Police imposed Section 44 on the whole of London for months on end. It abused the power, so the Government withdrew it, and there is a danger that the police could similarly abuse this power.
The Minister talked about HMICFRS, saying that this could potentially make the public safer—but at what cost to people’s human rights to protest, to freedom of assembly and to freedom of expression? He said there are all sorts of measures to prevent disproportionality in stop and search. Well, whatever the provisions are, they do not work.
While urging noble Lords to vote for Motion B2, I beg leave to withdraw Motion B1.
Motion B1 withdrawn.

Motion B2 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Lord Coaker: Moved by Lord Coaker
As an amendment to Motion B, at end insert “and do propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
6B: Clause 11, page 12, line 17, leave out “inspector” and insert “chief superintendent”
6C: Clause 11, page 12, line 25, leave out subsection (ii)
6D: Clause 11, page 13, line 8, leave out “24” and insert “12”
6E: Clause 11, page 13, line 17, leave out "superintendent" and insert "chief superintendent”
6F: Clause 11, page 14, line 3, at end insert— “(12) The chief superintendent must take reasonable steps to inform the public when the powers conferred by this section are in active use.””

Lord Coaker: I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 242, Noes 196.

Motion B2 agreed.

Motion C

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 17A in lieu.
17A: Page 19, line 22, at end insert the following new Clause— “Exercise of police powers in relation to journalists etc (1) A constable may not exercise a police power for the sole purpose of preventing a person from observing or reporting on a protest. (2) A constable may not exercise a police power for the sole purpose of preventing a person from observing or reporting on the exercise of a police power in relation to— (a) a protest-related offence, (b) a protest-related breach of an injunction, or (c) activities related to a protest. (3) This section does not affect the exercise by a constable of a police power for any purpose for which it may be exercised apart from this section. (4) In this section— “injunction” means an injunction granted by the High Court, the county court or a youth court; “police power” means a power which is conferred on a constable by or by virtue of an enactment or by a rule of law; “protest-related breach”, in relation to an injunction, means a breach which is directly related to a protest; “protest-related offence” means an offence which is directly related to a protest.”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C agreed.

Motion D

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 33A and 33B in lieu.
33A: Clause 20, page 24, line 19, leave out sub-paragraphs (iii) to (v)
33B: Clause 20, page 24, line 31, at end insert— “(c) P’s conduct in relation to each occasion mentioned in paragraph (a) has not been taken into account when making any previous serious disruption prevention order in respect of P.”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, your Lordships’ Amendment 20 removes Clause 20—“Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on  conviction”—entirely from the Bill. The Government listened carefully to the concerns expressed by this House regarding the conditions that could be considered when applying an order to an individual. That is why the Government have accepted the Lords amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Making this change means that an order could be given only on the basis that an individual has been convicted of a protest-related offence or been found in contempt of court for a protest-related breach of an injunction on at least two occasions. I believe that this is the issue with which your Lordships were most concerned, so we listened and we acted.
We still believe it is important that the police have the opportunity to apply for an order at a later point following conviction. Without this measure, it would not be possible to place an order on individuals who have already been found guilty of multiple protest-related offences until they reoffend and are convicted of yet another offence. Removing the ability to impose an SDPO otherwise than on conviction undermines this proactive element. That is why we disagreed with Lords Amendment 20 and tabled amendments in lieu, which reintroduce this clause but tailor the list of conditions, so that upon application an order can be made only where individuals have been convicted of protest-related offences or breaches of injunctions, thereby aligning this with the Lords amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
There has been some confusion about the nature of this clause, quite possibly due to its title, which should more accurately be defined as “Serious disruption prevention order made on application”. I assure noble Lords that we will look to make that change following the passage of the Bill.
For the avoidance of doubt, updated Clause 20 will not allow an order to be applied to an individual without a conviction. It will simply allow for an order to be made by a magistrates’ court on application by a relevant chief officer of police at a later point following two or more convictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has tabled Motion D1, which, with respect, I cannot support. To be subject to a SDPO, a person must be convicted of two protest-related offences or found in contempt of court for breaching two protest-related injunctions. Being found guilty by a court for these acts inherently means that their conduct was beyond a genuine expression of their right to protest. Additionally, it creates an inconsistency between this provision and SDPOs made on conviction, which have already been accepted by Parliament. With that in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord does not move his Motion.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
At end insert “and do propose the following additional amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
33C: Clause 20, page 24, line 31, at end insert— “(d) P’s conduct was frivolous or vexatious, beyond a genuine expression of their right to protest.””

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I appreciate the significant concessions the Government have made on serious disruption prevention orders. I believe that the clause is in a better place than when it was introduced, in part thanks to the efforts across this House; in particular, those of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
My amendment to the Minister’s Motion D seeks to make it explicit in the Bill that a magistrates’ court may issue an SDPO only if it reasonably believes that a person’s conduct has been frivolous or vexatious, to the extent that it has gone beyond a genuine expression of their inalienable right to protest. This criterion is in addition to, not instead of, that which requires that a person must have been convicted of two or more protest- related offences or contempt of court over breaches of an injunction. We believe that this is an important safeguard to the flawed clause, which we accept that the other place has voted to keep in the Bill. This change will ensure that the courts, when assessing whether someone’s behaviour warrants a prevention order of this kind, will have to rule explicitly that they have gone further than what can reasonably be interpreted as genuine protest. We hope this will protect those exercising their democratic freedoms in good faith.
I have spoken to colleagues across the House, and I will not seek to test the opinion of the House on my Motion, but I will listen with interest to other noble Lords’ contributions to this very short debate. I beg to move.

Lord German: My Lords, we on these Benches accept that the amendments have been made in the Commons but are still concerned that they do not go far enough. Taking the matter back to the beginning, the bar set on which people can be convicted or the orders can eventually be issued is based on the balance of probabilities. That matter was the source of a great deal of discussion in this House. A bar has been set which is basically non-evidential, because no evidence has to be proven of what has happened. Any amendments which would raise that bar just above a zero threshold are to be commended.
Having made the orders less draconian and brought them in line with the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, the SPDOs are to be imposed on protesters, taking away their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, on the balance of probabilities. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services reported, in its review of public order policing, that it doubted that these orders are workable, even with a breach of the order occurring. A person attending a protest peacefully, in breach of an SPDO, is unlikely to be treated by the court in the same manner as a potential terrorist. Courts would look at the effect of an order and measure that against the breach of human rights legislation, and, in the end, the effect of an order breaching a person’s human rights could well override the effect of the order.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, pointed out in Committee, these orders would remove people’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but only if a court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that depriving people of their human  rights on the weakest of evidential tests was sufficient. Therefore, there is an expectation that the courts would use a breach of human rights legislation to override the effect of the SPDO.
In seeking to raise the bar from zero—the bar is sitting on the floor, as no evidence is required—these amendments at least provide an evidential activity. They require an officer to have observed the evidence behind the requirement. The requirement in the amendments before us may not be sufficient, but it certainly lifts the bar, in relation to evidence, off the floor. In fact, we need to help police officers. Police officers may be faced with situations without evidence, such as listening to somebody’s hearsay about a protester. Alternatively, they may have it in their mind that possible action will take place if they assume that a protester, who is standing peacefully and undertaking a peaceful activity, could well jump across the road, lie on the ground and stop the traffic. In those cases, they would not have any evidence that the person was about to conduct themselves in a dangerous manner, so it would be effective to introduce provisions for that. This set of amendments could provide for those matters, but, as I have said, in a very limited way.
As the noble Lord will not press his amendment to a vote, it seems to us that the Government have to consider how the courts will deal with these matters when they are placed before them, when we have human rights legislation guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom to join together with others and freedom of expression. When all those rights are being harmed, what will the courts say and are the Government sufficiently ambitious that they think that their evidence based on these rules will give the human rights opinion any credence whatever?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, again, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their thoughtful and considered contributions to this debate. As I have already detailed, the Government listened carefully to your Lordships’ concerns regarding the serious disruption prevention order measures. Orders will now be applied only where individuals have been convicted of protest-related offences or breaches of protest-related injunctions on at least two occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord German, argued that serious disruption prevention orders contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. They do not. The right to protest is fundamental and despite sensationalist claims such as that, that will not change. These orders will ensure that individuals who deliberately cause serious disruption more than twice will face justice. Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR set out that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association. However, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others.
I hope your Lordships will be satisfied that the Government have responded with a very significant offer that addresses the key concerns expressed throughout the passage of this Bill. The Bill will better balance the rights of protesters with the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives free from disruption and address the ever-evolving protest tactics we have seen employed by a selfish minority of protesters. Blocking motorways and slow walking in roads delays our life-saving emergency  services, stops people getting to work and drains police resources. The British people are rightly fed up with it and are demanding action from their lawmakers.
It is time for this Bill to become law. I thank the noble Lord for saying that he will withdraw his Motion.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) withdrawn.
Motion D agreed.
Bill returned to the Commons with amendments.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [HL]
 - Commons Amendments

Motion on Amendments 1 and 2

Baroness Penn: Moved by Baroness Penn
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2.

Baroness Penn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the other amendments and that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
I start with Commons Amendment 2. As was noted in the other place, the Government agree that the bank will make it a stipulation that any investment into the water sector must be in line with the company having an appropriate plan and making sufficient progress against that plan to deal with sewage discharges. However, I want to make it clear that in this circumstance the word “preventing” is aimed principally at preventing harmful discharges and does not mean eliminating all discharges. I want to make this distinction in the House because I do not want the bank to be prevented by fear of legal action from investing in water companies which have a plan in place to meet their obligations.
I reassure the House that the Government are already taking major steps to improve water quality. We have announced legally binding targets on water quality under the Environment Act and ambitious interim targets to deliver these in our environmental improvement plan.
This Government have also implemented the strictest ever targets to crack down on poor water company performance. On sewage spills, our storm overflows plan requires companies to deliver the largest ever environmental infrastructure investment—£56 billion over 25 years. Where water companies are found to have broken the law and face fines for this behaviour, this Government have committed to reinvest those fines directly back into schemes to improve our water environment.
Commons Amendment 3 removes the Lords amendment to include nature-based solutions and the circular economy in the definition of infrastructure.  As noble Lords will recall, we debated this issue extensively in this House and it came up frequently in the Commons. At the time, I noted that nature-based solutions were already included under the inclusive definition of infrastructure and, as such, we did not think it necessary to add it explicitly in the Bill. The Government have reflected on the debate and recognise the strength of feeling on the matter and, as such, think the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, strikes a careful balance of making it clear that nature-based solutions are within the bank’s remit without being overly prescriptive.
The Government agree with the removal of the circular economy from the definition. We do not think including the circular economy—which is an imprecise term—in the definition of infrastructure would be helpful for the bank. However, I thank all noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising this issue during the passage of the Bill. We reassure them that the circular economy is an incredibly important principle and will be key as we transition to a more sustainable economy in a number of sectors. While we do not wish to expand the scope of the bank, I reassure the noble Lord that several of the areas highlighted in the debate on the circular economy are covered within its existing remit and objectives; for example, nature-based solutions, waste and energy efficiency, as was clarified in an earlier amendment to the Bill. I therefore anticipate that the bank will invest in and be a key proponent of a circular economy wherever it is in line with the overall objectives.
Commons Amendment 4 removes subsection (6) from Clause 2 of the Bill. The subsection included the wording “have regard to”, but this would still have had a significant impact on the bank. For example, on improving jobs, we understand the intention of the amendment and do not disagree with it as a general principle. However, we are concerned that there may be consequences if the principle were to be applied across the board as a statutory requirement in relation to every investment proposal. It could lead to the bank being overly cautious for fear of legal challenge.
The second part of this subsection, on reducing regional inequality, is also of concern. We do not want the bank to be under a statutory duty to consider regional disparities in the same way in relation to every investment proposal that comes before it. The strategic steer makes it clear that the bank must focus on geographic inequalities. However, this is best done on a portfolio basis rather than investment by investment, which would be required by the proposed amendment.
Although the Government agree with the Commons amendment, we recognise the concern of the House, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on this matter. I recommit to this House that after the Bill achieves Royal Assent the Government will amend the bank’s framework document to provide clarity on the role on the bank in levelling up the United Kingdom. We will include under the operating principles the wording:
“The bank will also address the spatial disparities across and within UK regions.”
This is in addition to the wording already in the framework document under its second objective:
“to support regional and local economic growth through better connectedness, opportunities for new jobs and higher levels of productivity”.
Commons Amendments 5, 6, and 9 concern provisions to add a duty to consult relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations on the use of delegated legislative powers in the Bill, including the power to amend the bank’s activities or the definition of “infrastructure”, and to issue the strategic steer. Commons Amendment 7 is related and sets out a requirement for UKIB’s board to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the interests of the devolved Administrations are considered in the board’s decision-making. These amendments have come as a direct result of positive engagement we have had with the devolved Administrations, and I am pleased to say we have received legislative consent Motions from the Welsh and Scottish legislatures. Unfortunately, given that the Executive have not formed, it was not possible to get a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Given we are on the subject of the board of directors, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was interested in whether the bank would appoint a workers’ representative to the board. I reassure him that the bank is abiding with the requirements of the corporate governance code and has appointed a non-executive director, Marianne Økland, to facilitate engagement with the workforce.
Commons Amendment 8 reduces the time period for statutory reviews of the bank following the first such review from seven to five years. This balance reflects the fact that we need to allow a nascent institution time to embed and fully establish itself in the market, which is why the first review will take place after seven years. However, subsequent statutory reviews will take place every five years to ensure proper scrutiny of the bank’s performance.
Commons Amendments 1 and 10 are of a technical nature and broaden the definition of “public authority” in relation to the bank’s capacity to lend. The drafting as is broadly meets the policy aims and would allow the bank to lend to local authorities and the Northern Ireland Executive. However, given that primary legislation can be something of a blunt instrument, we do not want inadvertently and by implication to preclude the bank from lending to other public authorities, such as any public bodies created by local authorities or government departments in future.
Finally, as is standard for a Bill that starts in the Lords and concerns matters of public finance, a privilege amendment was passed. Commons Amendment 11 removed this.
The Government have listened to concerns in both Houses and have made changes to improve the Bill. I look forward to the debate and hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Hayman: I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and rise to speak to my Motion 3A, which as the Minister said would reintroduce nature-based solutions into the definition of infrastructure in which the UK Infrastructure Bank may invest.
We had some very helpful conversations after Report and the debates in the other place, and I think we have now reached a highly satisfactory position on this amendment, in no small part due to the Minister’s customary constructive approach to the debates that have taken place in this House, for which I am very grateful.
Of course, the original amendment included the “circular economy”, and I know that there will be some disappointment that that is not included now, but the bank’s strategy is reassuring on that issue. Anyone who listened to the item on the “Today” programme this morning about data centres using the heat they normally have to dispose of to heat up the water in local swimming pools will have heard a lovely example of how we need to put those sorts of issues together.
I thank all the Members of this House who have taken part in the debates, and in particular those who signed the various iterations of my amendment, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This amendment has had significant cross-party support because of the increased recognition that nature-based solutions have a critical role to play in the fulfilment of the bank’s objectives. The Chancellor’s strategic steer in 2022 encouraged the bank to
“explore early opportunities in nature-based solutions”
and aim to have
“a positive impact on the development of the market”.
The bank has since published a discussion paper setting out its initial thinking on how it can invest in and support the growth of natural capital markets, and I look forward to the results of this consultation.
The discussion paper clearly explains the importance of natural capital as a form of infrastructure and the vital contributions it makes to our society and economy, often in ways which are more cost-effective to the taxpayer. Carbon removals through creating and restoring woodlands, wetlands and peatlands, flood mitigation measures, providing “clean and reliable” water supplies, underpinning our food security and bolstering our resilience to climate change: these constitute numerous examples of how we can deploy nature-based solutions to support our infrastructure and provide social, economic and environmental benefits. There is also an ever-increasing recognition of the key role that nature can play in solving climate change, nature being our biggest asset with which to fight it. Nature-based solutions also provide significant co-benefits, such as jobs and good health and well-being outcomes, with considerable economic advantages.
I welcome that the UK is leading on the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, but there is an average $700 billion funding gap for protecting and restoring nature globally, and evidence that more needs to be done to help market participants mainstream and scale these products alongside growing investor demand. This simple addition to the definition of infrastructure in the Bill sends a strong signal to the markets that the UK recognises this and the Government are serious about taking action to help build and develop this nascent market. It also provides certainty to the bank, which recognises that it has a role in  developing capacity towards a pipeline of investable projects and is poised to act. It will encourage others to do the same and further develop the UK finance sector’s position as a leader in this important emerging new market.
As I said, I am very grateful to the Minister and her officials for the support they have given and the resolution that I think we have reached.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her proposed amendment and congratulate her on her tenacity in pursuing this issue. She has achieved something notable, and I thank her very much indeed. Account being taken of nature-based solutions improves the Bill and, on that basis, I also congratulate the Minister. My noble friend has proved herself to be a listening Minister, and the Government have taken a very common-sense approach, which improves the Bill. It was previously a good Bill, and it is now a better Bill after changes made in this House and the approach of the Minister and the Government.
I do not propose to detain the House, except to say that I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said in Committee and at Second Reading. I regret that we have not gone a bit further, but at least we have an improvement in this legislation. On that basis, I once again congratulate the Government.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is both a force for nature and a force of nature in your Lordships’ House. I thank everyone else who has joined in getting this progress on nature-based solutions, although we should not look at those solutions as an alternative to cutting our carbon emissions. Both those things have to be done.
I was not going to speak but, given something the Minister said in her introduction, I feel forced to ask her a question. In justifying the exclusion of “circular economy” in the Commons amendment, she said that it was “not a precise term”. Does the Treasury understand the term “circular economy” and its essential nature in delivering the sustainable society we need? If the Minister wants a source for this, I point to a government paper entitled, Circular Economy Package policy statement, from 30 July 2020, which was put out jointly with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and which defined “circular economy” as
“keeping resources in use as long as possible, extracting maximum value from them, minimizing waste and promoting resource efficiency”.
Will the Minister confirm that the Treasury recognises that the circular economy is an acknowledged term and is urgently needed?

Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, I wanted to thank the Government and to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I thank them for their constructive engagement, which has allowed us to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
However, I thank the Government for listening in relation to a couple of other places. First, during the progress of the Bill through this House we had a lot  of discussions about the position of the devolved Administrations and how they should be involved. While they have not gone as far as I should have liked, I welcome the amendments that have now been included and the constructive engagement that has obviously taken place with the devolved Administrations. That is a nice change from some of the things that we have seen with other legislation in the past.
Secondly, Amendment 8 is identical to an amendment that I tabled on Report, which shortens the reporting cycle to five years. My amendment was not accepted by the Government at that time. When I tabled it, it led to what I think was a unique achievement of being co-signed by both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. That has not been achieved before or since. I said at the time that such a unique and powerful alliance should make the Government take that amendment seriously, so I am delighted and grateful that they have done so.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I have to admit, although I should not, that when I saw the Bill appear on Forthcoming Business I thought that it had received Royal Assent about a year ago, that it had gone and that everyone was happy. Clearly, the other place was not quite happy, so we are debating the Bill today. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, here because this morning I was at a meeting of the Green Investment Group—the privatised Green Investment Bank—as a watchdog on its purposes after privatisation. I hope that this infrastructure bank will not also be privatised in the next couple of years and we have to do the same for it.
I welcome the House of Commons amendment around water companies, moved by my honourable friend Richard Foord MP. Although the noble Baroness the Minister has circumscribed the effect of that amendment, I am delighted that the Government have accepted it. We all understand that water companies are under extreme scrutiny, mainly for their lack of investment and focus on environmental concerns under their custody. Equally, I welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I too join the congratulations on her tenacity in getting it accepted by the Government.
However, I also thank the Minister for her persuasive powers. I have said to her in the past that I should prefer her to be in another portfolio that I deal with even more, on which this House seems to be less persuasive on occasions. Yet she manages to persuade the Treasury, which is probably an even harder task, that sometimes this House can make some useful changes to the legislation before it.
I will not detain the House further, except to welcome these amendments, and hope that we can put the Bill to bed and that the UK Infrastructure Bank can get on and do what we all want it to do—invest in the future infrastructure of this economy in the wider sense, including the circular economy. I am grateful for the mention from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I understand from the Minister that most of the circular economy will indeed be accessible by the bank. I look forward to that as well.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I thank the Minister, both for her introduction today and for a helpful briefing held last week. When your Lordships’ House considered the Bill in the first half of last year, we were told that passing it should be a mere formality. The UK Infrastructure Bank was already operating, having made its first handful of investment decisions. The Bill was therefore essentially a technical exercise to give the organisation statutory underpinning. The Government resisted several sensible amendments, including one on worker representation on the bank’s board, partly on the basis that this legislation needed to be on the statute book quickly. I pause to note that the inclusion of a non-executive director at least moves in that direction. I thank the Minister, as I do for everywhere in the Bill where she has persuaded the Government to seek compromise.
However, in reality, it took some time for the Bill to get through the other place. The legislation having been introduced last July, Second Reading did not take place until November and Report not until last month. The delay was presumably the result of the Conservative Party’s summer of chaos, with a succession of Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer, and—if I remember correctly—a short period when the noble Baroness was not a Minister on this subject. We are back to our familiar form. The extra time has seemingly allowed Ministers to reflect, in some areas at least, as evidenced by the various Commons amendments that we are debating today.
We welcome the clarifications around the definition of “public authorities” and the importance of costed plans should UKIB funds be used to support the work of water companies. The devolved provisions, which have facilitated the passing of legislative consent Motions—something of a novelty in recent years—are also welcome. We are also glad that the Minister and the Bill team have been persuaded of the merits of including nature-based solutions in the definition of infrastructure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a persuasive argument but, as we have often seen, that does not always lead to the Government making a concession. I pause again, however, to note, as happens with so many Bills, the extent to which she and her supporters are making incremental progress in embracing the green thrust. Even now, I have a bit of optimism that we might move quickly enough to save at least some of the planet that we now enjoy. It is good to see that thrust building on both sides of the House. I hope that in a couple of years the sides will change but, if one has that general direction in the membership and on the Front Benches, it is possible that we will get there. In another two years we may be passing green amendments that will amaze us when we look back five years, at when some official or other said, “You can’t put green in there because it is nothing to do with the Bill”. We have put green in here and have persuaded people that it is something to do with the Bill.
I understand the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, with regard to the circular economy, but that concept will become ever more apparent and he will no doubt have other opportunities to promote it.
I regret that the Government have overturned my amendment. Colleagues may think, “You would say that, wouldn’t you?”, but I remain unconvinced of the Government’s reasoning for removing their own levelling- up mission from the Bill. I reluctantly accept the offer to make changes to the bank’s framework document and articles of association after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is not exactly where we want to be but it is a small step in the right direction.
Finally, we gladly accept the reduction of the interval between reports on the bank’s effectiveness. I was somewhat amused by this, as we were previously told that an interval of five years was simply not practical and could even somehow undermine the bank’s work.
Overall, while the Bill is a short, technical piece of legislation, the UK Infrastructure Bank could make a significant contribution to some of the big challenges that we face. We fully support the bank and, while there may be cause to revisit its mandate in the future, we wish it well in its work. Again we thank the Minister for her co-operation in bringing us to this consensus position.

Baroness Penn: My Lords, the Bill is mercifully short, so I shall also keep my remarks brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today and who contributed when we took the Bill through its substantive stages in this House a while back. I reassure them that the time it has taken for the Bill to progress is not unusual: I was working on the skills Bill in this House, went off on maternity leave and was back in time for ping-pong, so it is not necessarily an unusual passage for a Bill in Parliament.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Government are committed to moving towards a more circular economy which will see us keeping resources in use as long as possible, extracting maximum value from them, minimising waste and promoting resource efficiency. I hope I made that clear in my opening remarks. When it came to including a legal definition of “infrastructure” in the Bill, that is where my remarks about the potentially imprecise nature of the terms lay, but it does not reflect a broader lack of understanding or commitment by the Government to that agenda.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that His Majesty’s Treasury is very much committed to ensuring that nature and climate change are on the agenda for the Government and that we meet our global goals, committed to both in terms of Paris alignment and the new framework agreed at COP 15 in Montreal at the end of last year. He knows better than most that we published the Dasgupta review that looked at the role of nature in our economy. We have had an amendment to the Bill today, and that commitment will be ongoing.
Most noble Lords were very kind in not replaying my words on the review period for the bank. All I can say is that it is always a pleasure to listen to the contributions of noble Lords and be persuaded of the art of the possible. I am pleased with the changes that we have been able to make to the Bill; I think these have shown how effective Parliament can be in scrutinising our legislation. The UK Infrastructure Bank has transformative potential, which I know is recognised and supported on all sides of the House. I beg to move.
Motion on Amendments 1 and 2 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 3

Baroness Penn: Moved by Baroness Penn
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.

Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 3

Baroness Hayman: Moved by Baroness Hayman
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 3 and do propose Amendment 3B in lieu—
3B: Clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out “structures underpinning the circular economy, and””
Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 3 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 4 to 11

Baroness Penn: Moved by Baroness Penn
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4 to 11.
Motion on Amendments 4 to 11 agreed.
Bill returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
 - Report

Clause 1: Power to implement government procurement Chapters

Amendment 1

Lord Lennie: Moved by Lord Lennie
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of a review by the Trade and Agriculture Commission of the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on industry in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statementRequires a review by the TAC before regulations implementing the procurement Chapters can be made.

Lord Lennie: My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 1 and 6. I was thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would be here, but maybe the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will cover for him in his absence—he may arrive while I am speaking, who knows?
I begin by thanking the Minister both for being available between Committee and Report and for facilitating a meeting with Mr Phil Goff, the New Zealand high commissioner in the UK earlier in the Bill’s passage; both were very helpful indeed. Amendment 1 would require a review by the Trade and Agriculture Commission, the TAC, before regulations implementing the procurement chapters can be made. The TAC, as we know, is the independent committee of expert specialists in a number of fields—animal and plant health; animal welfare; environmental standards and so on. Its role is to scrutinise a new free trade agreement  once it is signed and to inform Parliament whether measures in the new free trade agreement are consistent with UK levels of statutory protection. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has arrived.
Last year, the then Secretary of State for International Trade, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, received confirmation that the Australia and New Zealand trade deals were indeed within that consistency, so one might wonder why we are putting down this amendment. It is not to score political points, or to attack the Government, but to ask TAC to consider the procurement chapters of these two free trade agreements. The TAC would need to be fine-tuned to do this by importing necessary expertise. In Committee in the other place, representatives of TAC agreed that it is only as strong or as weak as the parliamentary scrutiny process around it. We can see no reason to limit it to the agricultural aspects of agreements and not to extend TAC to look at procurement as well. Incidentally, it is regrettable that TAC’s role is limited to post the signing of deals, but that is not the concern of this amendment.
Amendment 6 would require an impact assessment of regulations made under Schedule 1 within 12 months, and every three years thereafter. These trade deals are not short-term, one-off deals: while predictions can be made in advance, they are generally vague or broad and wide of the mark, so impact assessments would consider what the actual situation is after time has passed, to better inform the future, and on a rolling basis. This would provide insight into the effect of these deals and help us learn lessons for the future. Whether the Government like it or not—I think they do not like it—these agreements set precedents for future trade deals. A number of concerns have been raised about these deals and it would be sensible to keep them under formal review and readjust expectations as we gain more knowledge. For example, on employment rights, the TUC has commented that the agreements do not contain commitments to ILO core conventions, and an obligation for both parties to ratify and respect those agreements.
On climate change, it is deeply concerning that vital commitments made to this House on climate change in regard to the Australian deal are not being upheld. Alok Sharma MP, COP 26 president, said on 1 December 2021, that the Australia deal
“reaffirms both parties’ commitments to upholding our obligations under the Paris agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5°.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/21; col. 903]
This final agreement does not uphold that important commitment. In other areas too—the NHS, small businesses, regions and particularly animal welfare, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will speak about in a minute—there are further problems. So, an impact assessment set against these concerns would be very helpful to assess the deals and prepare the UK for future negotiations. I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, and I shall speak to Amendment 3 in my name. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister for the close interest he has taken in listening to my concerns—most recently in a phone call on Sunday evening. I apologise for intruding on his weekend.
My concerns in the background, and my reason for tabling Amendment 3 at this stage, are twofold. One, as the noble Lord opposite alluded to, is the need for an impact assessment, particularly looking at the impact of implementing the procurement chapters of these free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand. What will the impact be on farmers, and indeed on the market for food within the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to lamb and beef? Secondly, in relation to the impact on the market for food, the impact assessment I am calling for must consider the production and food safety standards.
I am trying to impress upon my noble friend and the Government the plight of upland hill farmers, many of whom are tenanted farmers. I am most familiar with those based in North Yorkshire, where I had the honour to represent two different constituencies for a total of 18 years; I grew up in the Pennines in County Durham. Peculiar to those areas of the north of England is that perhaps 50% of the farms are tenanted. They also have very poor land but it does lend itself to grazing, and over the years they have done this extremely well. Therefore, they have thrived through our membership of the European Union and, most recently, the Basic Payment Scheme, through spring lambs and fat-store cattle.
I was particularly concerned to see in an article dated 5 March that it is estimated that in this financial year alone, the typical grazing livestock farm in the English uplands faces a drop in farm business net profit income of almost two thirds, to approximately £16,300. I would like to pay tribute to the work of Julia Aglionby, professor of practice at the University of Cumbria’s Centre for National Parks and Protected Areas. She predicts that the income will recover slightly to almost £23,000 over two years, before slumping back to £16,700. The ballpark figure is going to be between £16,300 and £16,700.
On that basis, the NFU fears that it is not going to be cost effective, as we move from the Basic Payment Scheme to payments for environmental and public goods, for farmers to farm in the uplands, certainly in the north of England, with which I am most familiar. So, they face a drop in farm income. Coupled with that is what I see as unfair competition and the lack of a level playing field. My noble friend Lord Inglewood will remember from our days in the European Parliament this elusive level playing field that we thought we would obtain at some stage in the European Union; it never happened, but I see it becoming more and more elusive as we go forward.
So, the purpose of this amendment is to look at how we can ensure, through proposed new subsection (2) of Amendment 3, that our standards of food production and safety will be met going forward. The NFU is concerned that there are no enduring safeguard mechanisms —that the mechanisms in place are for up to a maximum of 15 years.
I would like my noble friend the Minister to acknowledge when he sums up that, in its impact assessments for the two agreements, the Department for Business and Trade has modelled agriculture, forestry, fishing and semi-processed foods, which include the beef and sheep meat sectors, and these are estimated to see a fall of 0.35% in one agreement, and a minus  1.16% reduction in gross value added, respectively, relative to the base line, over the long run as a result of the FTA. We have to accept that some farmers will take the view that we are doing a deal with the devil.
Australia and New Zealand are very good producers of food. They have large tracts of land on which to produce their food, and they are going to come after our markets very aggressively. Regarding my noble friend’s department’s impact assessment, I accept there may be other areas under these agreements that may benefit, such as automobiles and whisky—which is close to my heart, coming as I do from Scotland—but I am here to argue for the plight of the hill farmer and the upland farmer, who are feeling very beleaguered as we speak.
Another source of concern that I hope my noble friend will address is how these imports are going to meet my test under proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 3. I have had a note from the Food Standards Agency concerning the percentage of food coming into the UK from third countries, including EU countries, as “checked at port or point of entry”. As we will recall, imports from the EU, which may include Brazilian, Australian and New Zealand imports, have been temporarily suspended at our borders; I think they are due to be phased in toward the end of this year. But imports from Australia and New Zealand through the EU are not being checked at our borders at the moment.
What is concerning me more is that all imported high-risk food and feed from non-EU countries is subject to control at our borders. This includes 100% documentary checks to ensure that the consignment originates from both a country and establishments that are approved to export to this country, and food and feed safety assurances contained with the Export Health Certificate have been correctly completed, meeting our safety requirements. Additional identity and physical checks will be carried out, and the frequency of such checks vary between—if the figures are correct—1% and 30%.
The FSA says that typically, meat and dairy products fall into the 30% frequency, while fish and fish products fall into the 15% frequency, and highly refined products of animal origin fall into the 1% frequency. Lamb and beef fall within the 30% checks, so we are taking an awful lot on trust at our borders from non-EU countries —an example being Australian and New Zealand meat imports—under the terms of a free trade agreement.
The final thought I would like to leave my noble friend with is that the checks undertaken by local authorities in England are a sort of last-chance saloon; at the moment they are patchy, and I hope that enough resources will be made available to them. Those are my main concerns. This is yet another agreement which is asymmetrical in nature, and we are doing a deal which is going to be far more in the interests of Australian and New Zealand farmers than our own. Unlike other free trade agreements, it does not allow for a safeguard measure, so it is putting our own producers of meat, particularly lamb and beef, at risk. It also lays us open, both as domestic producers and consumers, to substandard foods coming in.
Those are the concerns that lie behind Amendment 3, and I very much look forward to hearing some reassurance from my noble friend when he comes to respond.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 4 and 5, in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, to which I have added my name. It is clear that the Government are extremely keen to foster trade deals with any number of non-EU countries. It is also clear that this could be very beneficial to our British farmers if they are able to export their excellent world-class produce to new markets—provided that they are not bogged down with unnecessary and exhaustive paperwork.
However, Australian and New Zealand exporters will in fact gain far more than our UK counterparts. The main tariff reductions are on the UK side. Trade with the UK is likely to be a very small proportion of Australia and New Zealand’s trade; they have other trading nations much closer to their shores. Their animal welfare standards are not as high as those in the UK, and there are no safeguards against Australian imports after 15 years—sugar after eight years, and dairy after six years. Even the previous Secretary of State admitted that the current deal sold UK farmers short.
Regarding tariff quotas, in year 1 Australia will access 35,000 tonnes of beef quota with no duty. This is an estimated 10% of the UK’s total import requirements. This will rise to 30% of total import requirements by year 10, which will be more than 12% of total UK production. It appears that the Government’s aim is to reduce the profitability and viability of our beef farmers, who produce some of the very best beef in the world.
The Government have agreed to eliminate tariffs on New Zealand imports, although some products will be subject to phasing out. However, New Zealand lamb will be imported with no tariff at all after 15 years. Our hill farmers across the country, including those producing excellent Welsh lamb, feel that they are being undercut. This is already an area of agriculture that does not produce large rewards for farmers.
Amendment 4 would ensure that impact assessments are carried out for all types of farmers, especially upland, tenant and family farmers. It will be not the large conglomerate farmers who suffer from imports of cheaper, poorer-quality produce but the much smaller farmer, who is currently surviving on the edge of viability but who works disturbingly long hours, seven days a week.
The Government have pushed this and other trade deals with insufficient thought for the effects on our farmers. Amendment 4 would ensure that impact assessments are carried out on a regular basis. These impact assessments will be essential when the Government come to negotiate further trade deals with Canada and Mexico—a very different prospect from far-away Australia and New Zealand.
Amendment 5 would ensure that impact assessments for environmental standards, food standards, animal welfare standards and biodiversity are carried out and published regularly. Ensuring that these four key themes, featured in both the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act, are enshrined in the Bill is absolutely crucial.
Minette Batters, the president of the NFU, finished her speech to the recent NFU conference with a number of issues that she wanted the Government to address, including committing to promoting domestic  food production, putting farmers and growers at the heart of our trade policy, guaranteeing our food security and backing British farmers and British food. It is time for the Government to do just this and add these amendments to the Bill to show that they do indeed support British farmers.

Lord Lansley: My Lords, I will intervene briefly. We had a substantial debate in Committee on precisely these issues and I will not repeat the remarks I made then. I remind the House that my sister-in-law is a sheep and beef farmer in north Wales.
For these purposes, I draw attention to the fact that each of these amendments refers to the impact of the procurement chapters—on industry in Amendment 1, on farmers in Amendment 3, and so on. This allows the amendments to come within the Bill’s scope, because the Bill is about only the procurement chapters of the two trade agreements. But because the amendments are within scope and relate only to the procurement chapters, they essentially are pointless, since they do not allow for an impact assessment of the impact on farming; as far as I can tell, the procurement chapters do not impact on farming.
I looked at those chapters; I was a member of the International Agreements Committee, which looked carefully at these two agreements and reported to the House on them. Where New Zealand is concerned, the benefit of the procurement chapter in the short run is modest and principally relates to housing and access to procurement of national parks in New Zealand. Where Australia is concerned, the agreement essentially enables us to access procurements at a sub-federal level, but given the thresholds I am unaware of any likelihood of any significant impact on UK agricultural exports to Australia or vice versa, since these are not necessarily public procurements. The question is whether farmers and agricultural produce from Australia and New Zealand have access to the UK market more generally. All these amendments are pointless in this context since they relate only to the procurement chapters.
I hope we get on with this. When we last spoke, I said that I hoped we might have completed the passage of the Bill by early March. The whole point of the Bill is to enable these chapters to be brought into our domestic legislation and to allow the free trade agreements to be ratified and brought fully into force. I had hoped that we would have done it earlier than this, but thus far we have not.
I have one point on impact assessments, since the purpose is to try to get impact assessments. I still do not understand why those who are asking for these assessments to be made have not recognised that the Trade and Agriculture Commission produced reports last year on each of these free trade agreements. The International Agreements Committee and the International Trade Committee in the other place had commitments from Ministers that there would be a monitoring report every two years and a comprehensive evaluation of the free trade agreement after five years. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition, so I cannot see that these amendments have either procedural or substantial merit.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I think your Lordships must agree that I am a very fortunate Member of your Lordships’ House, because with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, everyone has been speaking on my account as a Cumbrian hill farmer. I should declare that interest, and that I am president of the National Sheep Association and of the Livestock Auctioneers’ Association.
The fundamental concern of agriculture about this seems to go back to the fact that when you have a carcass it is not really very clear whether it has been nurtured under benign environmental conditions or malignant ones. Equally, you cannot necessarily tell very easily, because of complicated scientific aspects that I had explained to me but do not entirely understand, whether it has had hormones introduced into it, and so on and so forth.
As I understand the law, under the international agreements, lamb in particular and beef from the two countries that we are talking about can be imported into our country. The legal impediment rests not there but with the fact that we are, under the WTO rules, allowed under certain circumstances to use welfare and environmental standards, as part of our domestic consumer protection legislation, to prohibit such products being placed on the market.
Against that background, what is needed in the context of the wider concerns that we have been touching on seems to be some kind of mechanism so that the British consumer and the British farmer know whether carcasses that might come into this country actually adhere to the appropriate standards. Speaking for myself as a Cumbrian hill farmer, I have no problems about competing with animals that have been reared in accordance with the standards that apply here. My worry is that you might in theory be undercut by products that come in from outside that do not adhere to those standards, for the simple reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, gave about the level playing field. The difficulty in theory is establishing whether that is the case.
Therefore, the question I put to the Minister—if he cannot answer me now, I ask him to do so by letter—is whether the Australian and New Zealand Governments will have proper farm assurance schemes in place to enable the traceability of the carcasses so that they can be identified. That seems to me, and to a number of other people who have been thinking about this, probably the most effective way of ensuring that this provision is properly adhered to in terms of our own domestic production. That would go a very long way towards allaying a lot of the concerns that have been expressed.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I rise briefly to offer general support for the direction of all the amendments in this group. I am sure that the Front-Benchers will have more to say. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I note that the commitment from the Minister to offer regular impact assessments is not the same as something written into the Bill. The Procurement Bill contains increasing promises from the Government for more local and national public procurement for schools, hospitals, prisons, et cetera. I am not quite sure of the timing or how this interacts with the nature of the procurement in this Bill.
I want to pick up on a point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. She noted concerns about ongoing negotiations with Canada and Mexico. These amendments can also be taken as a broader expression of concern about the potential impact of opening up our markets to agricultural products from around the world, produced under far worse environmental, animal welfare and public health conditions than the standards we have been used to under EU membership and those of our own producers.
For anyone who has not seen it, there is a very interesting report on Politico reflecting on discussion around the potential CPTPP membership in which Canada is pushing with Mexico to have the same market access for agriculture as Australia and New Zealand have won under their deals with the UK. If we look at Mexico’s production conditions, we see that its beef imports have very high carbon emissions. Canada uses farrowing crates, tail docking, teeth trimming and lots of other practices that we would regard as wholly unacceptable in the pigmeat industry.
These amendments are to be taken together as a real expression of concern about what kind of food we will potentially see on our plates and the environmental impact of the food our farmers will be producing.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for missing the first minute of his contribution.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about why at this stage of the Bill we are seeking to raise some of the concerns that have already been expressed. It is not just we who have been raising issues about these agreements in particular. I can quote from a website that says we know that farmers are concerned by some of the trade deals we have struck, including with Australia:
“A Rishi Sunak-led Government will make farmers a priority in all future trade deals.”
That website is Ready for Rishi. As part of that commitment, he said that as Prime Minister he would introduce a new “Buy Local” campaign. He would also:
“Introduce a new target for public sector organisations to buy 50% of their food locally, to back British farmers and improve sustainability.”
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised this in Committee. In discussing procurement, we are justified in trying to find out how that target from the new Prime Minister of 50% of public sector procurement through buying local will be implemented, especially since that same Prime Minister has recognised the concerns about these agreements we are debating.
It is also worth noting that there have been significant concerns among not only farmers in England but those in Scotland, to which I will refer, and Wales. Today’s Order Paper notes that Welsh legislative consent has been withheld. We should take seriously why the Welsh Government and Parliament have not been able to provide legislative consent in these areas. We also know the concerns of the Scottish Government.
Before I progress, I thank the Minister for his proactive engagement. I support his commitment to seeking opportunities to promote British exporters. The level of engagement he has shown to the Front  Benches and others is to his credit and that of his office. I appreciate his willingness and engagement. He and others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are keen to see this agreement put in place. From these Benches, I wish to see agreements where there are opportunities for UK exports, especially in rural procurement. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell has indicated, we will not be shy in raising concerns about what the impacts may be, especially where the Government say when it suits them that these either are gateway agreements for CPTPP or will set precedents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, about this. It is right that we test the impact on our domestic industries.
Our amendments seek specific reference to the impact on tenant and family farmers in particular, as well as on biodiversity. These are vital issues. The Government’s own impact assessment says that the cumulative effect of the Australia agreement will be a decline of 3% for beef and 5% of sheepmeat as a result of this liberalisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, indicated, this is one-way liberalisation. In many respects, we have already had the market access. The question is: what is the impact on that new market access for those within the UK?
I know that the Minister will probably repeat the reassurances he gave in Committee. I respect him for doing so. I hope he will allow me to give another indication of the significance of this and why we are so concerned. I was in Scotland at the weekend, as I normally am. I was in Dundee, speaking to producers. The impact on energy costs and the shortage of labour, as well as the potential for increased competition—which is not based on a level playing field—in the dairy, egg, chicken, potato and vegetable sectors, were brought home to me. At the moment, many are making very difficult decisions about whether they will be able to carry on with production. It is right to raise these concerns and to link these agreements with the debates we are having on food security and our rural economies. The energy costs and labour shortages in dairy and in lamb and beef production are of significant concern. A much more targeted impact assessment on what are very vulnerable sectors—not simply a review of the agreement overall—is now vital.
It is also relevant to refer to some of the press reporting about South American meat, which has allegedly been put on the UK market labelled as “best British beef”. I understand that a major investigation is under way by the National Food Crime Unit—part of the Food Standards Agency—into what could have been a significant mislabelling of products. Can the Minister comment as to when we may see the conclusion of this investigation? If he cannot say so today, will he write to me? Issues about standards, mislabelling, mis-selling and the impact on our rural economies are not theoretical but real. The fact that there could potentially be hundreds of thousands of products where British consumers thought they were buying British, but that were actually from other sources, is of significant concern.
I respect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the TAC. In Committee, I said that I had read the report and that I respect the work it does, but I do not think it is fair to say simply that  because the TAC has made a report on the agreement, we should not seek further reassurances on the impact. If there are to be means by which we trigger mechanisms in the agreement to protect those sectors which may face unfair competition, we need the evidence base to make that decision. Therefore, seeking an opportunity to raise issues about enforcement of the commitments in the agreement is valid.
Next, I will refer to precedent. On some agreements, the Government say that there is no precedent in any agreement, because each agreement is negotiated afresh. That may be factually the case, but we know, as the noble Baroness indicated, that the Government are negotiating in real time with Mexico and Canada, and we seem to be close to an accession to CPTPP. If other reports are true, we have given considerable concessions on palm oil to Malaysia as part of the CPTPP accession talks. Reports in the Financial Times indicate that we have accepted a demand from Malaysia to cut tariffs on palm oil to zero immediately on accession, whereas the EU has a de facto ban. That will create significant concerns about the UK’s commitments on anti-deforestation and biodiversity. Ultimately, because we have insufficient means to properly scrutinise government negotiating objectives, it is right, even at the late stage of Bills, that we consider them closely.
On CPTPP, the Government have been very clear. The Minister said at Second Reading and in Committee that the Government consider these agreements as a gateway to the accession, so it is right that we link them together. Alan Beattie of the Financial Times highlighted the potential of the CPTPP accession to be just 0.08% of growth in gross domestic product. He says:
“To express economic growth in decibel form, the UK joining the deal in its current form is a cat sneezing three rooms away.”
The Government’s rhetoric on some of these agreements is not matched by reality when we know what the direct impact will be. Even at this late stage, therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some reassurance to our sector.

Lord Lansley: Going back for a moment to the point the noble Lord made earlier about the sale of food to public bodies and these procurement chapters, does he recognise that the purchase of food locally by schools, hospitals and the like will almost certainly not be, as I judge it, within the definition of covered procurement and not above the threshold; and, therefore, the procurement chapters, in so far as they extend procurement opportunities to Australia and New Zealand providers under this Bill—and under the Procurement Bill—really would not be relevant to that local provision of food?

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I am grateful to the noble Lord; he knows I respect his work on this area very much. I would like the Minister to confirm that that will be the case, because I am not convinced. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her place. She was kind enough to have a meeting with me about it. I am not yet convinced, because of the elements within the Procurement Bill which will require there to be no discrimination for any of the treaty countries for public procurement in this country, that what he is  arguing for, which is effectively a carve-out, will in fact be the case. My understanding is that under the Procurement Bill, we are unable to discriminate against any of the treaty suppliers. I am not sure that a public body in this country would be able to discriminate. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that point.
The reason this is relevant and why I quoted the then candidate for leader of the Conservative Party’s commitment to 50% of public procurement in this country being local is that I do not know how that squares with what will be the legal requirement under the Procurement Bill that we are then unable to discriminate against Australian and New Zealand produce which will enter the market. I do not know how that squares.
I am simply asking the questions, because we have not had more meat on the bone, if that is not too inappropriate an analogy, about what has been published as a government commitment and is in the Procurement Bill. If the noble Lord has any other answers, I am happy for him to intervene on me. I do not know how he knows how this might be squared. I do not at this moment. That is why part of our agriculture sector is also questioning how these two commitments will come together. The different sequencing of this Bill and the Procurement Bill is relevant. Because it also sets the precedent for Canada and Mexico, with new produce coming in, and if these are gateway agreements for CPTPP, we are looking at potential competition with all CPTPP members for public procurement of produce. If you are a public body in the UK looking at cost-effective procurement of food for schools or hospitals and you are unable under the Procurement Bill to discriminate against Australian or New Zealand produce or that from any CPTPP country and state that there is local producing, similarly, I do not know that it is matched.
I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister can offer some reassurance. I hope that he is able to explain how these commitments to 50% of procurement can be matched, as well as give further reassurances, specifically on the impact on tenant farmers and biodiversity. There are genuine concerns here, I do not think they will go away and we need to offer that reassurance to these sectors, which are so vital to our rural economy.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, although I do not believe there is any conflict relating to our debate today. I am also grateful for the apology of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for being slightly late. I was fractionally late for Questions this afternoon, and was called on to resign, among other things. I hope the House does not mind that I have not taken that too seriously.
I am delighted to be speaking on Report of this very important Bill. If it is appropriate to make a personal comment, I have deeply appreciated the high level of engagement with the Opposition Front Benches, my noble friends and noble Lords across the House. I do not want to put words into people’s mouths, but I think we agree that it is a fundamentally good thing to do a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand.  I was watching the news yesterday and seeing the extraordinary advances we have made in collaboration, particularly with Australia, in our defence. It will benefit the economy in many areas in the north-west of this country, among other parts of this nation. The sheer sincerity of the brotherhood between our nations should be expressed very clearly. I very much hope that if the high commissioner of either Australia or New Zealand—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for engaging with Phil Goff recently—is watching this debate, they know that the fundamental spirit of the House is for a successful conclusion of this process and a good and successful trade deal with Australia and New Zealand.
At the same time, I am very aware of the issues that trade deals create. I am certainly not triumphal in any way about trade liberalisation or the effects that this trade deal will have on individuals and farming communities. I have been very sensitive to those discussions over the past few months and take this very seriously. I express my personal view that we must support our farming community, and this is unquestionably the view of this Government as well. It is important to have that on the record.
I would like to deviate slightly from the prepared text that is often given to Ministers on these occasions and actually try to answer the questions that have been raised, if that is not too procedural. Of the three groups of amendments, this one probably requires the most attention; I hope that the next group can be quite swiftly dealt with and the third relatively quickly as well.
Noble Lords have raised the important points that have come from this debate, and I greatly appreciate my noble friend Lord Lansley’s commentary. This procurement Bill, which I have in my hand, is a very specific and technical Bill, and to attach specific riders to it would not really make sense. If one is looking for assessment of the impact of the Bill on procurement, in the sense of the changing of the thresholds, the advertising and the termination concepts, I cannot really see how we can judge the impact of this specific legislation. That does not change the fact that I am keen to answer the questions and concerns that are raised, because clearly, it is called the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, as a result of which it is absolutely justified to ensure that we assess the specific points that the overall treaty raises. However, when it comes to the technical points in the amendments proposed, it would be unusual and unnecessarily cumbersome to attach any rider to them except for that in Amendment 2, which I will propose myself.
I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for his comments on what the Trade and Agriculture Commission could achieve in terms of further assessment and analysis. The TAC produced a significant and deep report on the proposed ramifications of trade treaties with both Australia and New Zealand. It was valuable in providing this House with the right level of evidence and, in my view—I read it very carefully—a high degree of comfort that the ramifications in many of the areas where there are concerns, such as animal welfare and the derogation of our standards, which has been a matter for debate for some time,  would be well managed and contained in a way that should not cause alarm, long-term concern or significant distortion to the markets.
On whether the TAC should consider procurement, I am quite intrigued by that. It is not for me to make pledges at the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has already suggested that such pledges are not worth a great deal—I know one noble Lord may have mentioned that; perhaps it was the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—but still, they are important statements. Even so, it is not for me to make prescriptions as to the direction of the TAC. However, as we evolve our trade plan, it is perfectly reasonable to investigate what additional areas the TAC may look at, although I advise that in this instance the commission should look specifically at the effects of the imports on the farming community. It may be worth looking at how we can assess further procurements. I would be happy to entertain that, if that is the right word.
The core point of these amendments is the impact assessment. We have already done a detailed impact assessment; in fact it has been raised. The very fact that it has demonstrated some long-term or medium-term effects on the farming community in its honesty is to be congratulated. It has allowed us to have a serious debate and to ensure that, when we create these agreements, we build in protections and safeguards, as we have, in order that there can be a steady five, 10 and 15-year transition. When it comes to assessing areas of risk, such as poultry and pork imports, the agreement is very different on that in terms of not liberalising those markets.
We have had the impact assessment, and we will have, after two years, a monitoring report. I have quite a lot of detail here in terms of after five years, which I think is the right time for a full assessment of the effects of these trade deals. That is what we want. The Government want to know what has happened. In our conversation with the New Zealand high commissioner, we learnt that New Zealand expected its deal with China to increase trade for New Zealand by 3 billion dollars a year, and it ended up being 30 billion dollars a year in five years. We are hoping for significant magnitudes of trade between our nations to enrich us. Two years, however, will give us enough time to monitor the activities of the trade deals in the respective countries, and after five years a full report will be presented. I believe that the five-year report will be presented to Parliament; if that is wrong, I will certainly correct that.
On top of that—and we discussed this in the last debate—there are numerous committees and structures within the agreement to make sure that they are functioning according to how we would like them to function. I welcome input from all Members of this House on areas where they think greater scrutiny is required, and where they think there are issues. Clearly, in relation to agriculture, we will have a constant dialogue as we go through the process,
In specific fact, as a legislative Act—I hope noble Lords will forgive me; I am relatively new to this House, so perhaps they can correct me—adding riders to this Bill would seem to be difficult to do in terms of trying to get the outcomes we want. Philosophically in practice, the Government have conducted an impact  assessment initially, which I think has been well received and has been extremely valuable in informing this debate. We have committed to a two-year monitoring report—I am very pleased to have discussions on what should be included in that to make it useful—and then there will be a five-year full assessment of the trade deals, as I believe we have committed to for all trade deals going through the House.
Points have been raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the precedent that this trade deal sets. I want to stress—this is extremely important from my point of view—that no single treaty sets a precedent for the next treaty. That is relevant; it is why there are negotiations with Canada, Mexico and the other countries in the CPTPP. Both those countries are in the CPTPP and we are negotiating different things with them while at the same time negotiating on CPTPP—I want to stress that. I can assure noble Lords that as someone who is in the Department for Business and Trade I see—admittedly one step removed from the negotiations—a huge effort to make sure that we get the right deal for this country, that it is measured and appropriate, and that we take the right time to conclude these deals in the best interests of the United Kingdom. They are separate, and I am very happy to have a separate debate, as we will—I hope soon—on the opportunities that will be presented to us by a plethora of other deals, but they will be stand-alone. I would expect the same degree of scrutiny as we have had for these two countries’ trade deals in this Bill.
The issue of animal welfare has been raised. That is extremely relevant and very dear to my heart personally; it is important to people in this country that our values in this area are not diluted in any way. We have done a lot of work to assess the impact on animal welfare. Looking at the TAC report, the impact assessment and other reports, we feel comfortable that animal welfare standards are comparable between Australia and New Zealand and the UK. Before noble Lords intervene—which I discourage, simply for the sake of the speed of the debate—let me say that there are differences in how animal husbandry operates in Australia and New Zealand, and some people might suggest that in some instances it is better in terms of the amount of space that animals have while in others they suggest that is worse. We are aware, clearly—which is not relevant for imports into the UK—of reports over the weekend on the movement of live animals and so on. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to speak to—

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: I am aware that the Minister suggested that there be no interventions, but I have to say one word: mulesing. That is a dreadful animal welfare issue in Australian sheep farming.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. It is not my plan in this debate to be triumphal or to score points or whatever in terms of coming backwards and forwards. I have done a great deal of work in order to satisfy myself that when it comes to mulesing, the reports suggest that a tiny percentage of meats that would appear in this country—I am only going on the reports that I have been given—would be at risk of being from that  practice. I have also been encouraged by reports that I have read about changing practices and standards in Australia. In particular, farmers who come under the Australian farm assurance programme certainly insist on anaesthetising before mulesing. I do not want to go down an alleyway, but the point is that great efforts have been made to ensure that, broadly speaking, our standards are aligned.
I have two more important points. The New Zealand Government have introduced a significant upgrade to their animal welfare standards. I cannot recall the name of the Bill, but if noble Lords wish to look, they will see that they are introducing a whole raft of new animal welfare standards and general environmental standards for farming, which will have enormous ramifications for their production and align them even further, if not go even further than we do. I spoke yesterday, specifically ahead of this debate, to the Australian high commissioner and raised this issue again, as I did with the Trade and Agriculture Minister who I met a few months ago. This has been my main issue, particularly when speaking directly to interlocutors about animal welfare standards.
They have confirmed to me that they are doing further work, which is very important. The Government of Australia have announced the banning of other practices, not associated with our exports but relating to live animal exports and so on. The direction of travel is very positive. We have not celebrated enough that our work in negotiating these trade deals has helped to drive up standards in both countries. I applaud our negotiating team for doing that, and applaud the debates that we have, with leadership from individuals such as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, ensuring that these areas are properly highlighted and that we can draw attention to our interlocutors and set standards, and that our negotiating partners know that we have these standards and that we wish to be aligned on them.
I have only a few more points to make. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made some very relevant references to the Food Standards Agency. I wrote to her and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Lennie, covering some of the questions raised in the last debate. This issue was raised. I have interviewed staff there to ensure that they carry out physical checks at the border for Australian and New Zealand products. They do not check every container, and frankly it is quite right that they do not. It would be an extreme impediment to trade, especially for food produce. However, they take a very proactive approach to ensuring that our standards—which, to reinforce the point, are not derogated in any way by these trade Bills—are upheld.
On top of that, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised a point about whether we can be comfortable of certification on the ground. In my recent call with the Food Standards Authority, I particularly covered the topic of Australia, which has a local assurance system, as do we. To be eligible to export, a farmer must sign up to the federal export assurance scheme; I cannot recall its name, but your Lordships will know what I mean. Therefore, vets who are under obligation to perform their duties—

Lord Inglewood: The question that follows from the helpful remarks of the Minister is: are the British Government confident and fully in line with what those schemes have to say?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I was just coming to that. I may have taken a bit too long to get there but I am trying to reassure noble Lords by describing in detail the lengthy process of assurance that Australia provides us with. It is part of the global trading system and not necessarily unique to Australia. We must do the same, as I understand. If I am wrong, I will ensure that this is corrected, but we must do the same with any agricultural or meat exports that we send to Australia.
Are we confident that Australia is upholding their system and managing it properly? The answer is yes. I have been impressed with the calls that I have had around this subject. It is a detailed and complicated process of assurance that ensures that we are comfortable that what we receive is indeed what is advertised. I do not want to be called back here if there is a case where that does not happen, because clearly that is not my intention, but on whether we are confident about the processes in place, the short answer is yes.
Regarding South American beef being passed off under British beef titles, I understand that this was only from one retailer, and the National Food Crime Unit is investigating. This struck me as an isolated case. Forgive me that I do not have all the details, but the major supermarket retailers have all denied any knowledge of this and it has not affected them. This is a unique case. I am happy to have someone write to the noble Lord because it would be interesting to find out a bit more about this, but it is not relevant in this instance. It does not seem to be widespread, but is specific. That it has been caught and is being investigated is very important.
I come to a conclusion—

Lord Purvis of Tweed: Can the Minister address the commitment that the now Prime Minister made for 50% of public sector procurement to be sourced locally? Is that government policy? How does that interact with the legal requirements in the Procurement Bill that a public body in this country would not be able to choose a local producer over a treaty supplier producer, on that basis?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments and was about to come on to that when I said “conclusion”. Sadly, my conclusions can run to several topics, the noble Lord’s being one of them.
It is correct that the procurement legislation prohibits a nationalist tilt towards procurement, which is what we want. When it comes to government procurement, we want the highest quality products at the lowest possible prices, and I would like to think that they will be British products. It will reassure this House to know that 81% of all beef sold in this country is under British brand labels. Only 19% international beef is sold in this country in the first place. The assumption  is that you are already looking at a very high level of local procurement. A 50% threshold would be logical for something such as beef, which already fits into that.
There is a further question and further investigation regarding whether procurement can be assessed in terms of other relevant factors. I am happy to have a further debate about that in general. It can apply to a wide range of concepts. It could even apply to how energy is sourced and supplied. There is always work defining what concepts such as sustainability or relevance to the environment could be in terms of transportation distances and so on. They are discussions to have. I have been having discussions in other areas, for reasons not linked to these trade discussions, on whether these factors can be brought to bear in procurement. We are very wary of introducing anything other than straightforward procurement rules, but I assure the noble Lord that—as with beef, where 81% is already UK beef—it would seem logical that a very high proportion of produce is sourced locally.

Lord Lansley: At the risk of delaying us on this point, the access that is given through these procurement chapters and for treaty state suppliers under the Procurement Bill is to cover procurement, which means procurements larger than the threshold amounts set out in the schedule to the Procurement Bill. For example, for local food production for a set of schools, this would have to be a procurement over £213,000. In truth, the issue is not whether there is an Australian company that is likely to bid for such a procurement, because these procurements will be smaller than that. It is whether beef from Australia is in this country and in circulation in their market which might then be used by local suppliers—but then they are a local supplier to the school.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I have appreciated my noble friend’s extremely positive interventions and applaud wholeheartedly his phrase, “Let’s get on with it.” He has also been extremely helpful in pointing out the specifics of the Bill and the difficulty of attaching these sorts of amendments to it, although I am very sympathetic to the overall philosophy of the desire for proper impact assessments, which we have had and agree to wholeheartedly in terms of the two-year and the five-year monitoring report. I stress again that this treaty does not create a precedent. However, it does create a model. I am very impressed and support wholeheartedly the flexibility of this agreement because it will allow us and allow noble Lords to call Ministers to account on a constant and rolling basis concerning the effectiveness of these trade treaties.
I believe that I have covered most of the points raised. I am very happy to continue a dialogue around these and any other measures that may not have been covered on this important piece of legislation. We believe, and I believe passionately, that this trade Bill is a good thing for this country. It will be of huge benefit to our citizens and our consumers. It will give us enormous additional security and allow us to have a closer relationship with two nations that have been, since their founding, sister nations of this country.
I am continually being asked by the representatives of Australia and New Zealand when this treaty will come into force because, as soon as it does, and only  then, their businesses and citizens, and ours, will be able to take advantage of it. I call on this House to support the Government in this mission. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, to withdraw his amendment, and for the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, not to move theirs.

Lord Lennie: The TAC covering procurement seems to be a future possibility, and I welcome the Minister’s comments on it. On the questions of food standards and quality assurance that noble Lords have raised, we will wait and see. We will have a review in two years and a conclusion to that in five years, and we will find out whether the assurances that we seek on food standards have been maintained. I do not think that there is any doubt about this being a gateway agreement: it is clearly to do with the CPTPP. The impact assessment that we are calling for is a one-off. This is the first time that we have negotiated a trade deal for some 45 years. To make sure that we have covered all the bases and got things right, we thought that a review—rather more frequently than the five years offered—would have been better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.

  
Clause 2: Further provision about power

Amendment 2

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Moved by Lord Johnson of Lainston
2: Clause 2, page 2, line 9, after “make” insert “different”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts a word missing from Clause 2(1)(a).

Lord Johnson of Lainston: My Lords, Amendment 2, in my name, is a minor and technical amendment that has been tabled by the Government to correct a typographical error in the Bill and clarify the power available to Ministers of the Crown or a devolved Administration under Clause 1. I am very grateful for noble Lords’ scrutiny, which was instrumental in highlighting this typographical error in the Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is not in his usual place, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, for highlighting this issue in Committee. If I may say so, their laser focus on detail in the Bill shows the real value of your Lordships’ House in ensuring that legislation is as robust and clear as possible. The Government are very grateful to noble Lords for highlighting this issue. I beg to move.

Lord Lennie: There is nothing to say; we agree.
Amendment 2 agreed.
Amendments 3 to 6 not moved.

  
Clause 4: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 7

Lord Lennie: Moved by Lord Lennie
7: Clause 4, page 3, line 4, at end insert—“(2A) This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”Member's explanatory statementAdds a sunset Clause to the legislation.

Lord Lennie: I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 7 and 8 in this group. These two amendments would sunset the ability to make amendments to two years after the law passes or the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. Incidentally, the Government previously said that accession would happen last year, but, as I am sure we are aware, it has not yet taken place.
The Explanatory Notes to these deals state that each party to the free trade agreement should ensure that its domestic legislative framework is consistent with the obligations in the FTA. The UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand free trade agreements require changes to domestic procurement law. Therefore, why not have sunset powers in the legislation? Is there any expectation that achieving this intention would take more than two years, and are there concerns that constant updates would be required for whatever reason? If so, would it be right to do so for more than two years in any event? If accession to the CPTPP will change our trade relationship with Australia and New Zealand, will a domestic legislative framework need to be updated in a manner not possible within the powers in the Bill so that it is aligned with the CPTPP and these deals if they are to coexist? A series of trade experts have commented that the UK will be a rule-taker, not a rule-maker, when we join the CPTPP. The Minister may perhaps wish to comment on this interplay between the Australia and New Zealand trade deals and the CPTPP. I beg to move.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: My Lords, I turn to Amendment 8 specifically, which seeks for the Bill to lapse when the UK joins the CPTPP. Bilateral free trade agreements, such as these signed with Australia and New Zealand, do not lapse due to membership of plurilateral agreements such as the CPTPP and the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. They exist alongside each other—that is important to note—with the UK having separate and continuing commitments under each. This is already the case with the numerous bilateral trade agreements that the UK has with members of the GPA, such as Canada, Switzerland, the Republic of Korea, the EU and Ukraine, to name a few.
I emphasise that the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand agreements will not be superseded by the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. Accordingly, the power in the Bill will still be needed when the UK has acceded to the CPTPP, to implement future modifications to the Australia and New Zealand agreements. In light of this, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Lord Lennie: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 7 withdrawn.
Amendment 8 not moved.

Integrated Review Refresh
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 13 March.
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on the 2023 integrated review refresh.
Two years ago, the Government’s integrated review set out a clear strategy on how the UK would continue to thrive in a far more competitive age. Our approach is the most comprehensive since the end of the Cold War. It laid out how we would bring together the combined might of every part of government to ensure that our country remains safe, prosperous and influential into the 2030s. The conclusions of that review have run as a golden strategic thread through all of our activities across defence and deterrence, diplomacy, trade and investment, intelligence, security, international development, and science and technology over the past two years.
Our overall analysis was right, and our strategic ambition is on track. On every continent of the world, the United Kingdom walks taller today than it has done for many years. We are meeting our obligations as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and as a leading European ally within an expanding NATO. We have strong relationships with our neighbours in Europe, and we will build on the Windsor Framework to invigorate those relationships even further. We are deeply engaged in the Indo-Pacific and active in Africa, and enjoy thriving relationships with countries in the Middle East and the Gulf.
As I am sure this House recalls, today is Commonwealth Day, and I will be meeting my fellow Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in London over the course of the week.
We have maintained our position as a global leader on international development by pursuing patient, long-term partnerships tailored to the needs of our partner countries, and we succeed because those partnerships draw on the full range of UK strengths and expertise, in addition to our official development assistance. As this House will of course be aware, the severe global turbulence forecast in the 2021 integrated review has indeed come to pass, but events have moved at an even quicker pace than anyone could have imagined just two years ago. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and attempts to annex part of its sovereign territory challenge the entire international order. Across the world, state threats have grown and systematic competition has intensified. There is a growing prospect of further deterioration in the coming years.
Due to the far-reaching consequences for the security and prosperity of the British people that these changes have brought, it is right that I update the House on what the Government are doing to respond. In our integrated review refresh 2023, we set out how we respond to an even more contested and volatile world. Rightly, our approach is an evolution, not a revolution. I know that the House will agree that our most pressing foreign policy priority is the threat that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine poses for European security.
The UK has provided huge quantities of military support for Ukraine’s defence. We led the G7 response on Ukraine, co-ordinating diplomatic activity and working with our allies to impose the toughest ever sanctions on Putin’s Government. Thanks to the wisdom of this Government’s original integrated review, we have intensified our training for thousands of brave Ukrainian troops, who repelled Russia’s initial onslaught. That momentum must be maintained until Ukraine prevails  and the wider threat that Russia and other states, such as Iran or North Korea, pose to the international order with their aggression or potential aggression is contained.
The 2023 integrated review refresh also sets out how the Government will approach the challenges presented by China. China’s size and significance connect it to almost every global issue, but we cannot be blind to the increasingly aggressive military and economic behaviour of the Chinese Communist Party, including stoking tensions across the Taiwan Strait and attempts to strong-arm partners, most recently Lithuania. We will increase our national security protections and ensure alignment with our core allies and a wider set of international partners. We must build on our own and our allies’ resilience to cyber threats, manipulation of information, economic instability and energy shocks so that we remain at the front of the race for technologies such as fusion power, which will define not only the next decade but the rest of this century.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say more on government spending commitments in his Budget Statement on Wednesday, but today I can set out a number of immediate and longer-term measures that will help us to deliver on our priorities. We will increase defence spending by a further £5 billion over the next two years. That will bring us to around 2.25% of national income and represents significant progress in meeting our long-term minimum defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP. Today’s announcement of £5 billion comes on top of the commitments made by the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement, on top of the £560 million of new investments last year, and on top of the record £20 billion uplift announced in 2020.
Later today, the Prime Minister will announce, alongside President Biden and Prime Minister Albanese, the next steps for AUKUS, including how we will deliver multibillion-pound conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to the Royal Australian Navy while setting the highest proliferation standards.
We will provide an additional £20 million uplift to the BBC World Service over the next two years, protecting all 42 World Service language services.
We have established a new directorate in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, incorporating the government information cell, to increase our capacity to assess and counter hostile information manipulation by actors, including Russia and China, where it affects UK interests overseas.
We will double funding for Chinese expertise and capacities in government so that we have more Mandarin speakers and China experts. We will create a new £1 billion integrated security fund to deliver critical programmes at home and overseas on key priorities such as economic and cyber security, counterterrorism, and the battle to uphold and defend human rights.
We will establish a new national protective services authority located within MI5. It will provide UK businesses and other organisations with immediate access to expert security advice. A new £50 million economic deterrence initiative will strengthen sanctions enforcement and impact, and will give us new tools to respond to hostile acts. We will publish the UK’s first  semiconductor strategy, which will grow our domestic industry for that vital technology, as well as an updated critical minerals strategy.
The 2023 integrated review reconfirms that the UK will play a leading role in upholding stability, security and the prosperity of our continent and the Euro-Atlantic as a whole. It underlines that this Government’s investment in our Indo-Pacific strategy is yielding significant results across defence, diplomacy and trade. Through those initiatives and many others that we have set out over the past two years, the United Kingdom will outcompete those who seek to destabilise the international order and undermine global stability. Our approach is imbued with a spirit of international co-operation and a pragmatic willingness to work with any country that does not seek to undermine our way of life.
We live in a competitive age, and the security challenges that the British people face today are the most serious in at least a generation. Time and again in our history, we have seen off the competition from countries that wish to do us no good. We were able to do so because the United Kingdom has always had more allies, and better allies, than any of our rivals or competitors. It will always be the policy of this Government to ensure that that remains the case. I commend the Statement to the House.”

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, it has been a year since Labour urged the Government to revisit the integrated review, so yesterday’s announcement was overdue but is welcome. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had a huge impact on European security. Of course, I add at this point that the Government have our fullest support in providing the military, economic and diplomatic support that Ukraine needs to defend itself.
The original integrated review did not really match the reality. The so-called Indo-Pacific tilt has apparently been completed, but the UK’s diplomatic presence in key countries in the region, including India and China, has been cut by up to 50% over the past eight years. The review promised to maintain the UK as one of the world’s leading development actors, but aid has not just been cut from 0.7% to 0.5% but is now being used to prop up the broken asylum system.
Britain is always a stronger and more effective force for good when we work with others. I am therefore pleased that the refresh recognises the need for changes to the multilateral system, specifically with reference to the UN Security Council and additional members. Do the Government also support wider reform for the Security Council, such as offering non-permanent members roles as deputy penholders?
It is also good to see the Government finally acknowledging the importance of our post-Brexit relationship with the EU on page 22. Labour would go further and seek a security pact to co-operate on global challenges and keep us safe.
The initiative to improve understanding of China in the Government is vital. We need a strong and consistent approach to China, working with partners and allies and engaging where it is in our interest.
I welcome the new economic deterrence unit to help enforce sanctions. I have raised this repeatedly in this Chamber, because sanctions without enforcement are  useless. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary was unable to tell the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee why the Government have not been using frozen assets to assist Ukraine. Now that the EU has set out a plan to repurpose frozen assets, and Canada has passed laws to do so too, I urge the Minister to follow their example and repurpose Russian assets as part of the long-term recovery for Ukraine.
On Iran, the Government are also right to recognise the increasing threats, so it was disappointing that they opposed urging the creation of a new mechanism to proscribe hostile state actors such as the IRGC. In Beijing on Friday, we saw the announcement of the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In a joint statement, the three countries said the deal was part of a move by President Xi to secure good neighbourly relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. What assessment have the Government made of this recent development?
In an era of disinformation, the BBC World Service is unique and an unparalleled platform, so additional funding is very welcome. However, on defence, yesterday’s announcement provides only funds for AUKUS and Ukraine replenishment. While that is welcome, it does not really answer the growing questions concerning capability gaps that weaken our national defence and undermine the UK’s NATO contribution. We have, of course, in the refresh, the long-term goal to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. Can the Minister give a timetable for this?
Given that the paper refers to the importance of global food security and nutrition in international development, I hope the Government recognise the importance of support in Africa, where millions are suffering from terrible malnutrition and life-threatening hunger. I was in Kenya only a week ago and that was pretty evident. The current situation is driven by the region’s worst drought in 40 years, but worsened by the multitude of other factors, as the refresh highlights. Will there be any further announcements on funding to address this crisis?
The refresh makes no mention of the role of civil society. I hope the Government still recognise its importance in defending human rights.
In conclusion, as David Lammy said, now is the time for the Government fully to address the gaps between strategy and implementation; between rhetoric and reality.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, I too welcome the publication of the refresh of the integrated review. Since the initial publication we have seen the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which we believed warranted an immediate review of the integrated review, given the significance of the position of Afghanistan in the previous review, and because the thread throughout the review shows the domestic implications of the Russian aggression and the geopolitical considerations. It is a significant piece of work and I commend those who have put it together.
However, I have concerns about some of the rhetoric, which is not necessarily matched by some of the concrete actions the Government will be taking. The document is in some respects in stark contrast to the rhetoric of the Statement. It says that this is now the most  comprehensive review since the end of the Cold War, combining the might of every part of government with an ambition that is “on track”. It states:
“On every continent of the world, the United Kingdom walks taller today than it has done for many years”.
If that is the case, I am not sure what the previous government integrated reviews were doing.
The Statement also says:
“We have maintained our position as a global leader on international development”.
That is jarring. The Minister knows, because I have asked him many Questions about this, that our reputation around the world has been significantly damaged by the Government’s catastrophic cutting of development partnership assistance. It has damaged our soft power reputation and reduced our capacity to respond to some of the significant implications of the Russian aggression. Some of those implications, which directly impact on the UK’s national security, have involved hunger and the weaponising of food and grain, which we know impacts us. We also know that there have been record amounts of internally displaced people in conflict areas around the world.
It is welcome that the Statement says that there will be a new £1 billion integrated security fund, but this will be only 75% the size of its predecessor, CSSF, which in 2020-21 was £1.26 billion, of which peacekeeping activity accounted for £376 million. This figure has now been reduced to £1 billion. I hope the Minister will be able to give more detail on what the integrated security fund will do and what role peacekeeping and peacebuilding will play. I declare an interest, in that I am involved with a number of peacebuilding charities. The previous CSSF scored over 50% on overseas development assistance. Is the same true of the new integrated security fund, or is it vulnerable to the 0.5% cap?
However, the Government are right—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins—to take a wider view of Russian aggression and the increasingly apparent positioning of the Communist Party of China. I have raised on a number of occasions our unprecedented dependency on imported goods from China. There is not much detail on imports from China and trade in certain key sectors. I agree with the Government that having more resilience in key economic sectors, while maintaining diplomatic partnership with China, is important.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us more detail on technological competition, which I think is an issue worth pursuing. The integrated review refresh cites the multi-billion dollar US CHIPS and Science Act and the European Chips Act. In the future we are likely to see a technology and semiconductor strategy, but we have yet to see what legislative action will result from that. One element was the calling in of the ownership of Newport Wafer Fab. When the Government made that decision, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, then in BEIS, what implications that would have for other parts of the UK’s technology sector and key industries that could be vulnerable to Chinese intellectual property or strategic competition. He said that there were no wider consequences. I disagree. I understand that the semiconductor strategy will no longer be dealt with by the business department but will be a Cabinet  Office responsibility. Will the Minister clarify who will own this strategy? Will it be co-ordinated through a national security committee or the Cabinet Office?
There are other areas where we will be moving away from dependency on imported goods from China. It is worth reminding the House that we have a trade deficit with China of just short of £40 billion. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, indicated, there is also now the situation with Iran. The announcement of a £20 million uplift for the BBC World Service is welcome. Will that include a direct commitment to maintain the BBC Persian radio service? I have had correspondence with the BBC since the government announcement, and I am not clear whether BBC Persian will be sustained as part of the £20 million uplift. If the Minister could clarify that point, it would be very helpful.
I welcome that the FCDO will now have a government information cell, as the Statement says,
“to increase our capacity to assess and counter hostile information manipulation by … Russia and China”.
What will that be doing that is different from what was in place beforehand? The Government are now saying they will double funding for China expertise and capabilities. As I am a former member of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee of this House, I know the Government stated that they had already provided extra support and capability on China’s language and expertise, so what extra will we now have that we did not have before?
I welcome the economic deterrence initiative for strengthening the sanctions enforcement impact. What is the Government’s position with regard to seizing Russian assets that had previously simply been frozen? It may be part of the economic crime Bill and we will be looking at that, but over £18 billion of Russian assets are now frozen. What is the Government’s assessment of the total scale of how much we would be able to actively seize that would be able to be diverted towards support for the Ukrainian people?
My final point is that the Government have put insufficient focus on where the geopolitical consequences of Russian aggression have moved. It is not simply a European war; a second front has opened in the global south and the east. We know the Russian Government are using both the UK’s cuts for international development assistance—as well as, regrettably, the messaging over the Government’s new migration Bill—to act against UK interests. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me and others that, with regard to those who are seeking the UK as a place of asylum from conflict areas from which there are currently no safe and legal routes, we could use the basis of this integrated review refresh to increase the number of areas from where there are safe and legal routes, especially Iran. It makes no sense to me to have Iran singled out in an integrated review refresh—a refresh that is welcome—while at the same time denying a safe and legal route for those women, and young women in particular, who will see the UK as a refuge for asylum but for whom there is no safe and legal route, and for anyone coming from those conflict-afflicted areas, or those who are vulnerable to persecution within Iran, to be deported to a third country. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to these points.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to respond to questions following the Foreign Secretary’s Statement on the integrated review refresh yesterday. As noble Lords will be aware, the IR refresh is the culmination of work across government over recent months. The Government have engaged with Parliament, the devolved Governments, external experts and wider stakeholders with an interest in our nation’s security and prosperity. At a moment of evolving global challenges, this refresh demonstrates that the UK is agile and ready to respond to the geopolitical issues that we face. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, for having made broadly the same point.
In 2021, the IR established a strong foundation for the UK’s overarching national security and international strategy. It took the right judgments to drive investment in collective defence and security; to increase emphasis on domestic resilience; to advocate a more activist problem- solving global posture; and to prioritise strength in science and technology. However, the review also identified that the world is becoming more contested and volatile, and those trends have clearly intensified over the last two years, with far-reaching consequences for the security and prosperity of the British people. From Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine to China’s growing economic coercion, the reality is that the world has become a more dangerous place. This update, IR 2023, sets out how the UK will meet that reality head on.
IR 2023 confirms that the UK’s most pressing national security and foreign policy priority in the short to medium term is to address the threat posed by Russia to European security, although I very much note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the wider implications of Russia’s activities. Our new Russian strategy began evolving the moment that Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine, waging an illegal assault on a sovereign nation and raising the spectre of war in Europe. The UK has provided huge quantities of military support for Ukraine’s defence, co-ordinating diplomatic activity and working with allies to impose the toughest ever sanctions on Putin’s Government. As we update our Russia strategy, our objective is to continue to contain and challenge Russia’s ability and intent to disrupt the security of the UK, the Euro-Atlantic and the wider international order.
China too, under the Chinese Communist Party, presents an epoch-defining challenge for the UK. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the second largest economy in the world, so it has an impact on almost every global issue of importance to the UK. Our approach must therefore be rooted in our national interest, co-ordinated with like-minded partners that are working with us to maintain an open and stable international order. We have already taken robust action to protect UK interests since the last review, such as new powers to protect our critical industries under the National Security and Investment Act, bolstering the security of our 5G network through the telecommunications Act and training more than 170 civil servants in Mandarin.
The refresh confirms that we will go further. We will double funding for a Government-wide China capabilities programme, including investing in Mandarin language  training—in addition to the numbers that I just mentioned —as well as diplomatic networks and intelligence analysis. We will roll out a new college for national security curriculum to boost our capability across government. Yesterday it was announced that as part of the IR refresh we will take action to bolster the nation’s defences as well, with an immediate uplift in funding and a new ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the longer term.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked for a timescale. I cannot give him a precise timescale, but I can say that we are committed to investing £5 billion over the next two years, which will help to replenish our ammunition stocks, modernise our nuclear enterprise and fund the next phase of the AUKUS partnership. As we face the most significant conflict in Europe since the end of World War II in an increasingly volatile world, we must ensure that our Armed Forces are ready for anything. We will maintain our leading position in the NATO alliance, with the new ambition, as has already been noted, to invest 2.5% of GDP in defence.
IR 2023 also sets out how we will step up work to protect the sectors, supply chains and technologies of strategic importance to the UK and our allies, with the new National Protective Security Authority providing a source of expertise and an interface between the Government and business. We will publish a new strategy on supply chains and imports, and we will refresh our delivery of the UK critical minerals strategy.
Our new semiconductor strategy, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about, will set out plans to grow the UK semiconductor sector and improve the resilience of our supply chains at home and overseas. As has been noted, semiconductors are critical to the UK’s economic and national security and fundamental to many technologies—everything from fighter jets to ventilators. We need to build on the UK’s strategic advantage to secure supply and our future as a technical leader in areas like artificial intelligence, quantum and cyber. The strategy will focus on our existing strengths in R&D, intellectual property and design and compound semiconductors to grow the domestic sector. It will also increase the resilience of supply chains against disruption.
The new economic deterrence initiative will build upon our diplomatic and economic toolkit to respond to hostile acts by current and future aggressors. With initial funding of up to £50 million over the next two years, the initiative will improve our sanctions implementation and enforcement. This will maximise the impact of our trade, transport and financial sanctions by cracking down on sanctions evasion.
After the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions we are looking at our wider neighbourhood, those regions where developments have direct consequences for this country, from migration flows to transnational security threats. Our approach in Africa, for instance, will continue to be defined by a greater appreciation of the perspectives of partners across the continent, focusing on mutually beneficial development on security and defence but also on clean infrastructure and, increasingly importantly, on climate adaptation. We will host the next UK-Africa Investment Summit in April 2024, bringing countries together to strengthen those economic and trade links.
In Latin America, we are working with partners on a wide range of issues but with a particular focus on implementation of the GBF agreed in Montreal in December—on biodiversity, nature and tackling climate change. Alongside that, we are continuing to up our work on tackling organised crime. We would be supportive of Brazil joining the UN Security Council as a permanent member, as well as India, Japan and Germany. Development remains at the heart of our foreign policy.
The UK is a leading global aid donor, notwithstanding the cuts we have debated many times. The noble Lord knows I wish to see a return to 0.7% as soon as possible. Notwithstanding that, we have a reputation for being effective and generous; we have spent more than £11 billion on international development assistance since 2021, including on tackling climate change and a whole range of other issues, not least girls’ education and global health. We remain committed to saving lives, to protecting the world’s poorest. We continue to prioritise development in our thinking. That was recently exemplified by the Minister for Development becoming a permanent member of the National Security Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of other issues, which I am going to tackle now before I move on. One of them was in relation to the BBC World Service. We will provide £20 million of additional funding to the service over the next two years. I think I am answering his question in saying that that will protect all 42 World Service language services, as well as supporting English language broadcasting and the ongoing counter-disinformation programme.
As in the original IR, climate is at the heart of our thematic priorities. It is essential that the UK transitions away from fossil fuels here if we are to meet our net-zero targets. At COP 27, we set out our intention to make the UK a clean energy superpower. The UK has already cut emissions faster than any G20 country, with renewable sources such as wind and solar now making up more than 40% of our supply—a fourfold increase in just 10 years. The UK was also the first major economy to sign net-zero emissions by 2050 into law. Just last month, we created a new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We tasked it with securing that long-term energy security and supply, bringing down bills and halving inflation.
IR 2023 reinforces the argument for even more investment in the UK science and tech ecosystem while we continue to manage the risks from rapid technological change. We will increase our resilience for the long term by surging investment into these areas. That is why we are committing to spending £20 billion a year on R&D by 2024-25 and why we have reorganised government to enable better focus and dynamism in an area that is critical for our future prosperity and security. Two years ago, we sent a clear message about what the UK stands for as an independent actor on the global stage. We committed to work with our allies and partners to shape an open, stable international order. Today, in a more geopolitically contested and less safe world, the IR refresh ensures that we continue that success as we continue to prioritise the British people’s way of life.

Lord Stirrup: My Lords, an effective strategy requires a sensible balance between ends, ways and means. The integrated review refresh is certainly better than its predecessor on ends and ways. I welcome the sharper focus on Europe and the Russian threat and the more coherent and robust approach to China. Unfortunately, the refresh fails signally when it comes to means. Does the Minister recall that as recently as 2010, we were spending 2.6% of GDP on defence? Given the accounting changes that have occurred since then, that probably equates to something like 2.8% in our present terms. The integrated review refresh is saying, in essence, that we face a more dangerous world than we have seen for many a year, and the Government’s response is a vague aspiration to increase our defence expenditure at some indeterminate point in the future to a level still well below that which we had in 2010. Could he have a go at explaining the logic behind that?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: My Lords, it is not true that these are vague aspirations. I think I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are committed to investing £5 billion over the next two years to replenish our ammunition stocks, modernise our nuclear enterprise and fund the next phase of the AUKUS partnership. We are committed to spending at least 2.5% of GDP in the longer term. As I said, I cannot provide a precise timeline on that, but there is pretty clear evidence of our intent in the commitments that have been quantified and given a timeline.

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but like others, I am slightly concerned about the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. Successive Governments have had a habit of defining success by financial input. Of the extra £5 billion, which I welcome, £3 billion is for nuclear—it is probably already held in the Treasury contingency and simply being drawn forward—and £2 billion is simply replacing munitions we have given to Ukraine. It is widely accepted that defence needs £11 billion just to stand still. That is a £6 billion deficit, meaning that there will have to be cuts. The reason why it is so important to know when we will meet 2.5% is that, without knowing that date, we do not know what needs to be cut and when. That is why we need an answer on that.
I declare my interest as a serving member of the Army. In pillar 2—“Deter, defend and compete across all domains” —paragraph 24 has the aspiration that with our military presence in the Baltics, we may be able to surge to a brigade; that is some 5,000 people. Ten years ago, we had 10,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Twenty years ago, we had a division of 20,000 in Iraq. Yet now, we may be able to surge to a brigade in the Baltic states. If that does not underline to my noble friend the Minister the perilous state of our Armed Forces right now without adequate financial investment, I do not know what does.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: On the financial commitment, I will just clarify that the extra £5 billion for defence is in addition to the overall spending powers set out in the Autumn Statement and was agreed with the Chancellor as part of the wider  Spring Budget plans. It is not recycled finance. In 2020, the Ministry of Defence received what I believe was the largest sustained spending increase since the end of the Cold War: a £24 billion uplift in cash terms. I think the noble Lord asked whether or not some of the money being spent in Ukraine was part of that. The extra funding that was provided at the Budget—and I will correct the record if I am wrong—will be in addition to the £2.3 billion of military support we have already committed to provide to Ukraine in 2023, matching what we spent last year.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I too welcome the integrated review and note that paragraph 28 on page 28 confirms the Government’s commitment to the fourth overarching priority of the 2022 international development strategy, which includes supporting global health. The Minister will be aware, as I know his department is, that drug resistance poses an increasingly significant and global threat to tackling global health risks of all kinds, including TB, malaria and HIV. So, while we await the global health framework refresh for the detail of the Government’s support for global health, can the Minister confirm that it will include commitments both to restore the cut in funding to Unitaid of nearly £250 million and to follow our G7 allies—the US, Japan and Germany—and pay in full the 29% increase in funding that the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria called for, which will mean, in our case, making up a shortfall of £800 million?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: My Lords, first, I simply reiterate that the IDS—the international development strategy—remains our overall strategy, and that does not change. But the changing global context means we need to go further and faster on certain elements of it, not least international development, and we are supercharging that IDS. I cannot answer the question in relation to the spending commitments. I am afraid I am going to have to put that to colleagues in the FCDO, in whose portfolio that sits. But I strongly agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the threat of drug resistance. This is probably the greatest health threat we face today. We take our eye off that very immediate, very grave threat at our peril. I will make sure that his remarks are heard by colleagues in the department. I also believe that on a domestic scale we should be investing in protecting ourselves—insulating ourselves as much as possible against the threat of drug resistance here in the UK as we reach the end of the pipeline of existing antibiotics, partly as a consequence of our abuse of them.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, this paper is a great improvement on its predecessor. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Collins and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. What I fear is that, although it recognises that Russia is the main immediate threat we face, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, says, it does not do sufficient to make sure that we can actually face that threat.
Is it not the case that what we need within the NATO alliance today is a massive programme of European rearmament to deter Russian aggression? Is it not also the case that, of the £5 billion that has been  awarded in this defence review, £3 billion will be spent, as it says in the document, on nuclear capabilities and the AUKUS submarines—not on conventional defence? Are we really satisfied that we are doing enough? Does the Minister accept that deterring Russia for us, as a medium-sized European power, must be the top priority?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: Not only do I agree that it is a short and medium-term top priority but I think that is reflected squarely in this document. How the additional money is spent is, as noble Lords know, for the MoD to prioritise. Whereas we are a medium-power European economy, we invest more in our Armed Forces than almost any other country in the world. We are a top investor.
Notwithstanding that, we are only as good as our partnerships with allies and friends around the world. The UK has been at the forefront of rallying a consensus against Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine, with some considerable success, in addition to the direct support we have provided to Ukraine’s defence. The UK has stepped up. I do not think we could be accused of underestimating or underplaying the threat posed by Russia. The UK will continue to prioritise this issue.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, the Statement says that we
“enjoy thriving relationships with countries in the middle east and the Gulf.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 539.]
This Statement came out just after the Times reported that there had been 11 executions in eight days in Saudi Arabia, among them that of Hussein Abo al-Kheir, the 57 year-old Jordanian father of eight. A UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had called for his release and said his case lacked “a legal basis”. It is reported that a UK Minister met the Saudi Government the day before the execution to call for it not to take place. I also note that in Bahrain it was reported yesterday that four people have been arrested over tweets, including tweets backing reform to its parliamentary system. This is in the context of an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting that is going to be in Bahrain. It has also revoked entry visas for two Human Rights Watch staff. Does the Minister really think that this would describe a “thriving relationship” that meets the Government’s stated intentions of supporting human rights around the world?
I have a second question that is perhaps more to the Minister’s taste. I am sure he has noticed that the word “climate” does not appear anywhere in this Statement. Does he agree that, if we are looking at the refresh of the integrated review, the extreme events of the climate emergency over the last two years surely should have seen a focus on the even more pressing nature of that issue?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that a Foreign Office Minister made representations before the execution took place. I think it would be wrong to exaggerate the power we have as a country; we cannot command countries not to take decisions of the sort that Saudi Arabia took, but it is right that Foreign Office Ministers  made representations. We will always continue to do so. It is a long-standing policy that we oppose the death penalty.
We use every opportunity we can to promote the values we hold dear: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and democracy. I do not think anyone questions our commitment to those values. Equally, we work with countries all around the world that do not share all those values. If we were to work only with countries whose values aligned entirely with ours, we would be pretty isolated on the world stage. It is right that we should have a constructive relationship. We are working closely, for instance, with the UAE as it makes preparations for COP 28. We will be a very strong partner to ensure that all the commitments secured at previous COPs are followed through and strengthened at COP 28, which is being hosted by the UAE.
On climate change, the noble Baroness is right, but this is a refresh. It is an additional document, almost an appendix to the IR, and does not replace it. Although there are many ways in which the threat of our abusive relationship with the natural world can be seen to have increased over the last two years—or at least our understanding of the threat has—the emphasis in the IR on the need to prioritise global environmental protection, restoration and tackling climate change was pretty much front and centre. Therefore, by definition, it remains front and centre. The refresh does nothing to diminish that commitment.

Lord Stirrup: My Lords, can the Minister make a clarification? In his answer to my question, he said that the Government had a firm commitment to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. The integrated review refresh says it is an aspiration. I would be very pleased indeed if the Minister were able to say that his remarks were the accurate statement of the Government’s position.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: I think what I said was that the firm commitment related to the £5 billion over the next two years. Did I use the term commitment in regard to the 2.5%?

Lord Stirrup: Yes.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: In that case, it is a goal. The language that has been used is that it is a goal to get to 2.5%, but the commitment I was referring to is the £5 billion over the next two years.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, there are a number of questions that the Minister did not answer. I hope he can get his department to write to us and give the answers to the questions we had, particularly from the Front Bench.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: I feel I have been hurling answers across the Chamber, but clearly I have not answered all the questions. I will go through Hansard, and ask officials to do so as well, to make sure that any unanswered questions are answered.

Manchester Arena Inquiry: Volume 3 Report
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 6 March.
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the inquiry into the horrendous attack on Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
I work closely with MI5. While its activity is necessarily discreet, the whole country should be profoundly grateful for the patriotism and courage of its staff. They work indefatigably every day to keep the British people safe. Since the start of 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 37 late-stage attack plots.
An Islamist suicide bomber murdered 22 people and injured more than 1,000, as well as inflicting incalculable psychological damage and misery. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our profound sorrow and extending our heartfelt condolences to everyone affected by this barbaric act. They were supposed to have a brilliant time and come home safely. What should have been a simple pleasure turned into a hellish nightmare. It is vital that we understand what happened and what lessons we need to learn, because we must do everything possible to prevent a repeat of this outrage.
Volume 3 of the inquiry was published last Thursday. I would like to thank Sir John Saunders and his team, who have spent more than three years on it. Sir John finds that there was a failure by the Security Service to act swiftly enough, and that there were
‘problems with the sharing of information between the Security Service and Counter Terrorism Policing’.
Following the publication of the report, the director-general of MI5 and the head of counterterrorism policing offered their profound apologies for not preventing the attack. Sir John does not blame any of the educational establishments that the bomber attended for failing to identify that he was a risk, but he does find:
‘More needs to be done to ensure that education providers share relevant information about students’.
Sir John concludes that the bomber
‘should have been subject to a Prevent referral at some point in 2015 or 2016. However, it is very hard to say what would have happened if’
the bomber
‘had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.’
The police investigation into the attack, Operation Manteline, is praised.
Although Sir John cannot conclude whether the attack would have been prevented, he finds that there was a significant missed opportunity to take further investigative action that he judges might have led to information that could have prevented it. While this is welcome, and the Home Office will work at pace with both organisations to act on the chairman’s recommendations, we must not lose sight of the fact that responsibility for the attack lies with the bomber and his brother. These conclusions require careful consideration.
Since 2017, the Government have made a number of changes to how we deal with and seek to prevent terrorist attacks. We have given law enforcement and intelligence agencies improved powers. We have strengthened the controls around access to explosives precursors. We have strengthened the management of terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders in prison and on licence. We have ended the automatic early release of terrorist offenders in England, Wales and Scotland, and we have ensured that the sentences served by terrorists reflect the severity of their offending. We have strengthened the tools for monitoring dangerous people in the community.
We have invested heavily in counterterrorism. We unveiled a new counterterrorism operations centre in 2021 that brings together partners from counterterrorism policing, the intelligence agencies, the criminal justice system and other government agencies. This will allow minute-by-minute collaboration between teams in the police and MI5. Last year’s integration of Special Branch into the national CT policing network will improve our response to the full range of national security threats, boost skills and ensure better communication between agencies and a more consistent and effective national response.
Work is under way to develop a new faith security training scheme to raise security awareness among faith communities and help them to mitigate threats. We continue to engage with faith organisations and security experts to develop the scheme. In April, my right honourable friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) announced the continuation of the Jewish community protective security grant for 2022. In May, new funding was allocated to provide protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools.
In response to any terrorist attack affecting British nationals, in the UK or overseas, the Home Office’s victims of terrorism unit works to ensure that the right support is available to them. The unit is conducting an internal review to strengthen its work. I am overseeing a comprehensive review of the Contest strategy to combat terrorism. It follows on from the independent review of Prevent, led by William Shawcross, which assessed the programme’s effectiveness in preventing people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the review made clear, Prevent requires major reform, and I have accepted all its recommendations.
Prevent has underestimated the threat of Islamist extremism, which remains by far the biggest threat that we face, and too often it has minimised the role of ideology in terrorism. It will focus on security, not on political correctness, and its first objective will be to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. The Government have also developed a comprehensive system of support for the owners and operators of public places across the UK. It includes access to research-driven expertise through products delivered by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
However, we must go further. Martyn’s law, formally known as the Protect duty, will introduce proportionate new security requirements for certain public premises throughout the UK. They will be better prepared and ready to respond, and their staff will know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Martyn’s law will  clarify who is responsible for security activity at the premises in scope, increasing accountability. We are also considering how an inspection function will oversee compliance, to provide appropriate advice, and, where necessary, to sanction.
Martyn Hett was one of those killed in Manchester. I am enormously grateful to his mother, Figen Murray, and the Martyn’s law campaign team, as well as to Survivors Against Terror and all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims’ groups that have informed our work. I have always been humbled when I have met them and heard about their experiences.
The doctrines that underpin the way in which the emergency services respond to incidents have improved since the attack. Let me end by once again recognising the anguish, and the courage, of the loved ones of those who were killed or hurt on that dreadful night. It united the country in sorrow and in disgust. We will continue to work non-stop to prevent further such tragedies from being visited on others, and I commend this Statement to the House.”

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I start once again by praising the work of our intelligence agencies and those who work for them. They help keep our country safe. As the Home Secretary pointed out in her Statement to the other place, MI5 and the police
“have disrupted 37 late-stage attack plots”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 41.]
since 2017—plots that no doubt would have cost lives.
However, in a democracy, even the work of our secret services should be open as far as possible to scrutiny and be accountable with, where necessary, difficult questions asked. Such questions have arisen from the Manchester Arena attack and the public inquiry ably chaired by Sir John Saunders.
Before posing some of these questions and comments, I once again express the profound sorrow we all feel at the 22 people who were brutally murdered, the more than 1,000 injured and the many others psychologically damaged. We once again send our heartfelt condolences to all those affected by this barbaric act.
The open volume 3 Saunders report makes a wide range of recommendations. Can the Minister outline how these are going to be taken forward? These are the published ones, but what about the secret reports and recommendations that will be contained in that? Can the Minister confirm to us that the ISC, as a parliamentary scrutiny committee, will be fully informed and involved?
What about the families so tragically and awfully affected? How will they be supported and informed as we move forward?
The Minister will also know that Figen Murray, many of the Manchester Arena survivors and all of us are waiting to know the government timetable on the introduction of the so-called Martyn’s law. What is that timetable, and can the Minister say any more than what was said in the other place, which was, in essence, shortly and in due course? It would be helpful if we had more detail as to when Martyn’s law might be introduced.
Sir John concluded:
“There was a significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented the Attack”,
and that there was a failure to act on information and to share information. Is the conclusion that this is due to individual failures of judgment by MI5 officers, or is it part of a wider systemic failure in the security services? Sir John said that others were involved in planning and carrying out the attack. Can we be assured that progress is being made in arresting the others?
The terrorist bomber frequently visited someone who was in prison for terrorism offences. That did not, it seems, trigger any alarm. Are the Government looking at Sir John’s recommendations about changes in approach to visits to terrorist and extremist prisoners?
In the report, we are also told that the bombers used a video online to help them make the device. How is it possible for a video such as that not to be taken down? Will the Online Safety Bill deal with matters such as this?
Concerns were raised about Libya and the Security Service not sufficiently understanding these threats. Has this led, or will it lead, to any change in how we assess and reassess threats—with no fixed view on the hierarchy of such threats but one based on evidence now and as it emerges?
Can the Minister also comment on the fact that some of the families still feel that, because of the secrecy of much of the evidence provided by MI5, they received less information than they wanted? Much of the proceedings was held in camera, which was justified because, if it were not, such evidence would not be made available at all—that is the official explanation. Does the Minister believe that there is a paradox here, because the Manchester Arena inquiry was a public inquiry, yet some of it was not public. That is unlike an inquest, where people can be compelled to attend and give evidence in public. As the Spectator reported in an excellent article, this contrasts with the inquest on 7/7, another terrorist incident, where MI5 officers attended in person, appearing behind a screen and identified by a letter but still able to be cross-examined. Will the Minister look again at the boundaries in public inquiries between necessary secrecy and transparency, and at the use of public inquiries rather than inquests?
We cannot undo the past, as much as we would all like to, but all the victims and all the families deserve as much of the truth as possible. The recommendation of Sir John Saunders’s excellent report should be taken forward, alongside other initiatives such as an independent public advocate, as quickly as possible. The families deserve no less.

Lord German: My Lords, I echo the sentiments at the end of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I too welcome the third volume of the inquiry, and thank Sir John Saunders and his team for all the work they have put in.
We must remember that our thoughts must be with the families, friends and all those affected by this atrocity. Twenty-two innocent people lost their lives, hundreds more were injured, and many thousands are emotionally and physically scarred for the rest of their lives. Those responsible for this terrible, cruel and  merciless act are the bomber, his brother, those who radicalised them, and those who provided them with support. We condemn their actions. We must take steps to ensure that everything possible is done to make such a set of acts impossible in future.
The inquiry has shone a light on what must be achieved to do just that. We have to face up to the shortcomings which the inquiry has exposed, no matter how hard a reading they make, and put in place the appropriate safeguards. I welcome the Government’s Statement about how they are going to address these matters, and that they intend to press forward with all the recommendations raised by the inquiry. I will come to the closed chapters in a moment. However, much more detail is needed if this House, the public and, most importantly, those directly impacted by the atrocity are to be satisfied that everything possible is being done.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, and I will try to avoid repeating those of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. First, the inquiry report contains closed chapters and recommendations, so can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have received those closed parts? If they have received them, can he say whether the recommendations within them will be restricted to selected Ministers, or, as I hope, that there can be engagement with the ISC, even if it is in camera, so that there will be an extent of knowledge and understanding of these issues wider than a very small group of people? As long as there is mystery, there will be misunderstanding.
Secondly, on Martyn’s law, I welcome the intention to introduce the legislation. We are promised the legislation “in the spring”. I am told that we are now, officially, “in the spring”, so when will the Government produce the draft legislation for us to scrutinise? I obviously recognise that there is difficulty in introducing the legislation itself because of parliamentary timetabling, but producing the draft legislation, which has been promised, is in the Government’s hands. I will try to help the Minister with the wording “in the spring” by asking: will it be introduced before Easter, before the Coronation, or in the official period called “the summer”?
My third question is on the issue of workforce pressure. One of the things that was quite clear from the inquiry report was that there were staff shortages, particularly in the north-west of England. If the Government intend to follow through on all these recommendations, how do they intend to meet the shortfall in personnel identified by the inquiry?
I turn to the countering extremism strategy. This was declared out of date in 2018 by the relevant commissioner. What steps are the Government taking to revise and publish a new strategy? In that context, are Prevent, Contest and the Shawcross review now being seen together as a whole? When can we expect to see their results being addressed? Will the conclusions be drawn together into a revised countering extremism strategy package, so that all the thoughts about the way forward are contained in a single document?
Finally, the Secretary of State responding in the House of Commons repeatedly said that she wanted to focus on security, not political correctness. I may be slightly dim on this matter, but can the Minister tell us  what political correctness she was talking about? In the end, we all share the ambition to ensure that the people who have been most affected by this—the families, the friends and everyone else who has been scarred by this—understand that we will do everything we can to prevent it. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank both noble Lords for their comments and echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. As the report made very clear, responsibility for the events of 22 May 2017 lies with Salman Abedi and his younger brother, Hasham Abedi. That is not to say that we should not also remember the victims and their families; it was a particularly awful tragedy and I am sure that all noble Lords’ thoughts and sympathies are with them.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I congratulate the intelligence agencies. As he pointed out, they have stopped 37 attacks in recent years, as was made clear, and frankly they deserve our admiration for that, notwithstanding any particular failures or problems that have been identified through Sir John Saunders’ report. While I am thanking people, I also, obviously, thank Sir John for his comprehensive report, which has considerably helped in forming our response—not just the Government’s response—to such events and how we deal with them going forward.
I will do my very best to answer all the various questions that were asked. Obviously, if I miss anything inadvertently, I will commit to write. Both the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the Statement. Volume 3 has been published and the chairman is determined to monitor recommendations that have been made with the ISC. Volume 3 “open” has only just been published; Volume 3 “closed”, to my knowledge, has not yet been shared with the Government. The Government will carefully consider the report’s findings and recommendations in full and consider any recommendations Sir John makes about the role the ISC can play, in light of the memorandum of understanding that exists between the committee and the Government, which we have discussed many times in the last few days. As noble Lords will be aware, the MoU is available on the committee’s website.
Work on Martyn’s law, which both noble Lords asked about, is progressing at pace and legislative proposals will be taken forward when parliamentary time allows. In the interim—I suppose this the option D that that noble Lord, Lord German, did not identify—we will be publishing a draft Bill in this parliamentary Session. I cannot say more than that yet. I appreciate that it has been several years since the attack, and while we accept that we have to deliver this as quickly as possible, we need to develop proposals that realise effective outcomes and truly make the public safer, and to develop appropriate and proportionate provisions which consider the impacts on the premises that will end up being in scope.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about prisons and prison visits and the fact that Salman Abedi was able to visit a particular character in prison when he was a terrorist offender. The man’s name was Abdalraouf Abdallah. Abdallah was a category B prisoner and this was arranged through the standard visits process.  Under the new approved contact scheme, we are enhancing checks on visitors and communications linked to certain offenders, including tagged offenders, regardless of their categorisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, very sensibly if I may say, quoted the Spectator, which I was delighted to hear from the opposite side of the House, in referencing the 7/7 inquiry. In effect, he was asking what was restricted from the final report, and whether the Government are effectively hiding anything. The answer, of course, is no. The inquiry was rigorous, evidence-based and had access to every bit of information that MI5 and the police held that was relevant to the attack. It was established for the very purpose of ensuring that information that was national security-sensitive could be fully considered as part of the judicial investigative process. The nature of MI5 and counterterrorism’s police work means that a great deal of what they do and how they do it has to remain secret. The chair acknowledged that. He said that revealing details of how they operate would hand our adversaries—in this case, terrorists—an advantage that would impact the UK intelligence community’s ability to keep the country safe.
MI5 and counterterrorism policing gave as much evidence as they could in public, and it was for the chair to determine what was or was not made public. He was clear that he would make his own judgments on this and said that he would
“not allow the proceedings to be ‘stage managed’ by the Security Service”,
Greater Manchester Police or others, and that he would not
“act as a rubber stamp”
when taking decisions on restriction orders. That is a pretty clear statement that he certainly conducted his inquiries in the most robust way that he could, which was certainly appropriate to the circumstances, based on the national security considerations that he identified.
On the video that was published, I am not as familiar with the Online Safety Bill as perhaps I ought to be, so I shall reserve judgment on that—but I certainly hope that it would be taken into account, and I shall most certainly also make sure that my colleagues in the relevant department are aware of the noble Lord’s request.
On inquests and the various changes that have been made or considered, I appreciate that it is a difficult problem. It is probably not for me to comment on the nature of coroners’ inquests and what have you. All I can say is that the law was carefully looked at, and it was decided that it would not be appropriate to change it in these circumstances. I think that is fair, but I appreciate that it is not the message that the families want to hear. I feel for them, but I also understand the broader context in which that question was asked.
On resources, we have invested heavily in counter- terrorism. The new Counter Terrorism Operations Centre was announced in 2021, which brings together partners from counterterrorism policing, the intelligence agencies, the criminal justice system and other government agencies. That will allow minute-by-minute collaboration between teams in the police and MI5. I hope that goes some way to answering the concerns of the noble Lord,  Lord German, about resourcing. It is adequately resourced with substantial amounts of money. From memory—my papers are in a bit of a mess—I think that the number is about £370 million over the next couple of years. It is definitely going to improve cross-agency communication, which—to bring it back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made—was perhaps what Sir John meant when he talked about significant failures.
I have read a large amount on this subject, and I say that the judgments of security officers are obviously finely calibrated, and they are taking into consideration a number of factors. Perhaps there were failings and they need to reflect on those failings—and MI5 has been very candid about making it clear that it holds itself accountable for this. But it is important to bear in mind that these are people making very careful judgments based often on flimsy evidence. We should take that into account when considering what they do and how they do it.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked me what we were doing on Prevent. Of course, as Sir John mentioned, Prevent is not necessarily something that Salman Abedi would have been referred to—and, if he had, Sir John also acknowledges that it may not have made any difference. As the noble Lord will be aware, we also published the report on Prevent relatively recently. All the recommendations and considerations in that report are being carefully considered in the Home Office, and I am sure that we will have much more to say on that in due course. I think that I have answered all the questions.

Lord German: Perhaps the Minister could tell us about the “political correctness”.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I am sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was referring to. I could speculate, but I would prefer not to.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, volume 3 of the Manchester Arena inquiry is really hard to take in, because it is shocking to hear the director-general of MI5 apologising for not preventing what seems to have been a preventable attack, even though of course the full blame for the atrocity lies with Salman Abedi. But in terms of learning lessons, one confusion that the Minister may be able to clarify is that Sir John says that he does not blame any of the educational establishments that the bomber attended, yet still concludes that more needs to be done by education providers and says that Abedi should have been subject to Prevent. I do not understand why. Does not that distract from the fact that a radical Islamist operated in plain sight of security forces post education and was not stopped?
Just to follow on about Prevent and whether we can trust it, I was glad that the Statement referenced William Shawcross’s review of Prevent, which admits that we underestimated the threat of Islamist terrorism for fear of, for example, being called Islamophobic—maybe that is part of the political correctness point. There was conflation of that kind of threat with views labelled extremist. Can the Minister reflect on how unhelpful it is at the moment to label a wide range of  citizens as Nazis or far right—everybody from anti-ULEZ protesters to those worried about small boats—and that this might water down our official vigilance of security and the threat of radical Islam, in very unhelpfully labelling everybody as extremists?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The noble Baroness raises a good point. I sometimes think that the speed with which polar opinions are voiced in this country is unhelpful to sensible public debate. She makes her point well, particularly as regards the frequent application of the word “Nazi”, which is rarely appropriate in my opinion. As regards the education system, I take Sir John’s opinions at face value and have little more to add, I am afraid.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I want to pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about victims, what they have been seeking from the inquiry and the balance with the inquest. I heard the Minister talk about the closed chapters not being appropriate. However, there are mechanisms to help the survivors and the families to get closure.
I want to ask two tangential questions and if the Minister does not have answers now, I am more than happy to receive them in writing but they are significant. We have been promised a victims Bill for some time. There was a draft Bill, but we have been waiting for that and it is probably five years overdue. It would be helpful if he could give us a date for when Parliament will look at that.
The other thing that worries me is that I had hoped on the publication of the third part report to hear the voice of the Victims Commissioner. We do not have one. Dame Vera Baird left her post on 30 September last year. Applications were sought in August and the period for them closed on 10 October. The panel sift was on 15 December and there is total silence. The role of the commissioner in helping to hold inquiries and inquests to account, and supporting families, particularly in unusual incidents, is vital. When will there be a new appointment for Victims Commissioner?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I am afraid that I will disappoint the noble Baroness. I have absolutely no idea when the victims Bill is likely to arrive in Parliament. I will endeavour to find out and write, if I can, with any further information. As regards the Victims Commissioner, I cannot answer. I should reiterate my sympathy for the victims in this case, and I say from a personal point of view that I cannot necessarily see what difference having a Victims Commissioner would have made to their experience. It was going to be awful and tragic, whatever the outcome. I am sure that nothing can take that pain away.

Silicon Valley Bank
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 13 March.
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the steps His Majesty’s Government have taken to limit risks to our tech and life sciences sector.
Following the rapid deterioration of Silicon Valley Bank, and working in concert with the Bank of England, early this morning we facilitated the purchase of the UK subsidiary of Silicon Valley Bank by HSBC. Serving 39 million customers globally, and headquartered and listed here in the UK, HSBC is Europe’s largest bank. Those affected are now secure in the knowledge that their deposits are protected and that they can bank as normal. Customers should not notice any changes, while the wider UK banking system remains safe, sound and well capitalised.
Using stabilisation powers granted by the Banking Act 2009, which afforded us the ability to safely manage the failure of banks, we have forestalled disruption in the tech sector and supported confidence in the UK financial system. The resolution action was taken by the Bank of England in consultation with HM Treasury, using its powers to transfer the UK business of SVB to a private sector purchaser. As required by the Act, the Bank of England consulted the Treasury, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority on its assessment that all required conditions for that transaction had been met.
We have been able to achieve this outcome—the best possible outcome—in short order without any taxpayer money or government guarantees. There has been no bailout, and the actions taken are a win for customers, taxpayers and the banking system. The transfer of SVB UK to a buyer has allowed the Treasury to limit the risk to public funds by ensuring that shareholders and creditors, rather than depositors, bear losses. To help achieve that result, the Bank of England has made a related instrument bringing about a mandatory reduction of capital instruments in SVB UK, restoring it to viability. It is my view that, in this situation, the system worked as we would hope.
In order to ensure that the sale could proceed, the Government are using their powers under the Banking Act to provide HSBC with an exception to certain ring-fencing requirements. That was crucial to ensuring that a successful transaction could be executed, that the bank has the liquidity it needs, and that deposits and public funds are protected.
The outcome will provide security for some of the UK’s most innovative, fast-growing firms. The UK’s tech and life sciences sectors are world leading, hundreds of thousands of people are employed in them, and they make a very substantial contribution to the economy as a whole. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear throughout that we will look after our high-tech sectors, and that is what we have done. The Bank of England has confirmed that, as a result of the swift, decisive action we have taken, depositors will be able to access their accounts. It is worth reiterating that, as the governor has said, the wider UK banking system remains safe, sound and well capitalised.
In concluding, I place on record my sincere thanks to my fellow Ministers across Whitehall, to officials at the Treasury and to regulators. They worked tirelessly through the weekend to grip the situation, to deliver this solution and to prevent real jeopardy to hundreds of the UK’s most innovative companies.”

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, we recognise the indispensable role played by the UK life sciences and tech sectors. These drive growth and innovation across the economy, as well as creating and sustaining good jobs. We therefore welcome yesterday’s announcement that HSBC is buying the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank.
As the Statement makes clear, this move protects SVB UK’s customers’ deposits, allowing them to bank as normal. That will allow a range of start-ups and scale-ups across the UK to continue their operations rather than having to deal with immediate financial and other pressures. We are grateful to officials at the Treasury, Bank of England and financial regulators for working at pace over the weekend to facilitate this agreement.
The collapse of SVB raises important questions about the risks taken by some financial institutions and their regulators. It is true that in the UK context the system established under the Banking Act 2009 has worked. However, my colleague Tulip Siddiq asked yesterday whether, at the time when SVB UK’s licence was granted, any assessment was made of the significant liquidity risks associated with SVB UK’s deposit base. I do not expect the Minister to answer that question today, but I should like an assurance that a review will be undertaken in due course or that Ministers will make themselves available to parliamentary committees for questioning.
Normal ring-fencing rules also had to be disapplied to allow HSBC’s acquisition. The Economic Secretary helpfully confirmed yesterday that this exemption will be permanent. Will the Minister go into more detail about any steps HSBC or SVB UK may be required to take in the future? If she is unable to do so today, perhaps she will write with further information prior to our debate on the “made affirmative” statutory instrument.
The Government are currently making significant changes to UK financial regulation. We support the broad thrust of this, as the financial services sector makes a significant contribution to the UK economy and its success will be key to future growth. However, as our many debates on the Financial Services and Markets Bill highlighted, we must balance risk and reward. Does the Minister have full confidence in all the regulatory changes proposed in that Bill and in the so-called Edinburgh reforms, which will come on stream later, or is it possible that the Treasury might wish to revisit some aspects of those initiatives in the light of recent events?
While the UK part of SVB’s collapse may have been addressed quickly, global markets have still been sliding as recent events are processed and questions are being asked about the risk level of similar institutions. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we do everything possible to provide confidence in the UK’s financial system? With this in mind, and given the impacts of persistently high inflation and increasing interest rates on UK institutions, will the Government launch a systemic review of the risks facing the sector?

Lord Fox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, albeit in the graveyard shift: she could have got in a bit earlier. Having read through the details of the events of the last weekend, I can  understand why the Statement veers towards the slightly triumphalist: the sale of Silicon Valley Bank to HSBC averted existential problems for a huge number of UK tech businesses, and I am sure the Minister and colleagues are pleased to have done this. We should congratulate the Treasury and the Bank of England, as well as Coadec, Tech London Advocates and BVCA on the industry side, all of which came together very swiftly over the weekend. But where do we go from here?
First, can the Minister confirm that there will be a full investigation, both to confirm how this happened and, more importantly, what lessons can be drawn? One lesson we can all observe is that bank runs in the social media age happen in hours rather than days: the speed with which the run on this bank happened points, I think, to future issues if we ever came to them. As we know, Silicon Valley Bank’s UK wing oversaw roughly £7 billion in deposits from 3,000 entities across the country’s important tech industries and, contrary to US reports, it was not ring-fenced from its US parent. My first specific question is how we ended up in a situation where a huge proportion of a vital sector of the UK economy was reliant on one regional US bank. I am sure the answer is not simple, but it is important. For example, accessing connections to venture capital may have led banks to SVB, but there is also evidence that the traditional UK banks just do not have the appetite to take up this kind of business. Where will the tech start-ups go now for funding, especially in an environment where capital is getting more scarce?
History tells us that, when interest rates rise as fast and by so much as they have during the past period, bad things nearly always happen. It is a near certainty that one of two outcomes will occur: recession or a bank crash—sometimes both. I am sure we all hope that the failure of SVB, the closure of Signature Bank and the Tory-created crisis in UK government bonds and the pension sector are just outliers and do not herald something worse. They may, indeed, be one-offs; however, it seems to me that the Government, the Treasury and the Bank of England have to err on the side of caution. Can the Minister assure us that the tone of this announcement does not indicate a sense in our financial institutions that their work is done?
The SVB crash epitomises the risks buried in our financial system as central banks rapidly lifted borrowing costs. SVB’s unhedged investments in long-term, fixed-rate, government-backed debt securities left it doubly exposed to rising interest rates because it reversed tech companies’ growth and hit the price of its securities. There may be other issues that unwind when investigation of this bank carries on—we will have to wait and see—but how did the US regulators miss the issue at the heart of SVB? Since the 2008 financial crisis, the focus has been on liquidity, although I would suggest that not even that has been particularly successful. Interest rates have grabbed little attention because they had not posed a significant threat in recent decades, but they do now.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government have asked the Bank of England to review the stress tests it conducts in order to take into consideration the rapid rise in interest rates? Can the Minister confirm  that the tests will be extended into the so-called shadow banking sector, which is increasingly grabbing large slices of business traditionally carried out by banks? Can the Minister also assure your Lordships’ House that the necessary horizon scanning is under way?
I do not think anyone predicted the LDI issue in the autumn, and I do not think anyone pointed to a sector-focused regional bank like SVB being the source of a crisis. So where could the next crisis come from? I can offer three options in the current environment: insurance funds investing in illiquid assets; overvalued real estate; and private equity funds with opaque valuations. I am sure the big brains in the Treasury will be much better at navigating the complex and interwoven investment landscape and come up with a better list to enable them to avoid unpleasant surprises. Can the Minister confirm that there are people digging down into the systemic risks which are buried deep inside the highly complex finance systems and finance products that exist around the world today?
At the heart of this is also politics. Republicans have loosened US bank regulations in recent years and banks such as SVB had previously lobbied successfully to be excluded from the category of systemically important banks—that meant they faced lower capital and liquidity standards. We are not immune from the same political pressures in this country. The Edinburgh reforms announced late last year also point towards deregulation, not least in the plan to reform the ring-fencing regime for banks.
But more than that, and as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to, we can see this trend in the Financial Services and Markets Bill that is currently being debated by your Lordships. For example, Clause 24 in that Bill requires the FCA to help drive the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, in particular the financial services sector—help drive the competitiveness of the economy. This creates a huge conflict of interest within the FCA, and in light of the SVB it looks at least questionable. Can the Minister confirm that this clause will be reviewed with a view to future amendment when the Bill comes back on Report?
Finally, after 2008 the Government and the financial sector all said “Never again”, and there were significant changes to the banking regulations; much of this was based on a report led by Sir John Vickers. Speaking today on the BBC, Sir John said that the country made advances in 2009 and we must not row back on these advances. He explicitly said that the Edinburgh reforms should be reviewed again and that ring-fencing should be maintained. I would remind the Minister that, failing anything better, the Government are the scrutiniser in chief, and the buck stops with the Government. Will the Minister listen to Sir John and halt the slide towards deregulation in this country?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, as noble Lords have recognised, the course of events over the weekend was a good outcome for the customers of Silicon Valley Bank in the UK and an example of the Bank of England, in consultation with the Treasury, using powers granted by the Banking Act 2009, as part of the post-crisis reforms, to safely manage the failure of a bank and, in  this case, facilitate its sale, which has protected those customers and taxpayers. I add my thanks to both noble Lords’ to the officials in the Treasury and at the regulators who worked tirelessly through the weekend to grip the situation and prevent real jeopardy to hundreds of the UK’s most innovative companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether any assessment was made of the significant liquidity risks associated with SVB UK’s deposit base at the time its licence was granted. Those authorisation decisions are for the independent regulators to comment on. However, requiring SVB to subsidiarise meant that it was independently capitalised from its parent in the US and had its own liquidity buffers. That brought the firm into the scope of the UK’s resolution regime. Had SVB UK remained a branch, it would have been resolved by the US resolution authority as part of action taken with respect to SVB.
That distinction is important to make in relation to a few of the points from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in looking at the potential differences between the regulation and the regime in the US and the regime in the UK. However, there is read-across between the two. That is why we have measures in place to ensure that banks that are of systemic risk to different jurisdictions have cross-jurisdiction oversight, and that regulators work together on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked about the ring-fencing changes made to facilitate the sale. To ensure the sale could proceed, the Government used powers under the Banking Act to provide HSBC with an exemption to certain ring-fencing requirements. This was crucial to ensure that a successful transaction could be executed, that the bank had the liquidity it needs, and that deposits and public funds were protected. We broadened an existing exception in the ring-fencing regime, allowing HSBC’s ring-fenced bank to provide intragroup lending to SVB UK. This should facilitate the smooth operation of SVB UK. In addition, SVB UK, which is now a subsidiary of HSBC’s ring-fenced bank, is not subject to the ring-fencing rules.
Both noble Lords spoke about the importance of doing everything possible to ensure that there is confidence in the UK’s financial system. We absolutely agree with the importance of that, which is why the UK authorities took such swift and decisive action this weekend to facilitate the sale of the firm. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, noted how quickly events unfolded. It is certainly true that the timeline including the weekend gave the time and space for such a resolution to be found, but that only adds to the point about the speed at which these events can take place.
Both noble Lords also asked about the stress test system for banks and about launching a wider systemic review of the risks facing the financial sector, including non-bank risks. Of course, both noble Lords will know that that is the role of the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England, which is responsible for identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks to financial stability.
The FPC meets quarterly, following which a record of its discussions is published. It produces a biannual financial stability report setting out its assessment of the risks facing the financial system and its resilience.  It looks at it for the non-banking sector, but also sets the scenarios and coverage used for stress tests within the banking sector. Those decisions remain with the Financial Policy Committee.
Both noble Lords also rightly pointed out that, while we reached a good resolution in this instance, it is of course right that we reflect on what happened and look at whether any lessons can be learned. I can confirm that the Treasury and the Bank of England are looking to work together to ensure that we reflect properly on the events in this case.
Finally, both noble Lords also referenced the reforms that we are currently taking through this House in the Financial Services and Markets Bill and through the wider Edinburgh reforms set out by the Chancellor in December. I assure all noble Lords that the Financial Services and Markets Bill introduces ambitious reforms for a financial services sector that will give the UK the ability to continue to grow and be internationally competitive with other markets, while adhering to the highest-quality regulatory standards. As my honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said to the House of Commons yesterday, having good, healthy businesses that grow and are profitable is the best way to avoid jeopardy. The Bill and the Edinburgh reforms deliver that commitment. We are confident that our reforms will deliver a high-quality regulatory environment for our financial services sector in future.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I know it is unconventional, but will the Minister advise us whether the lessons learned report is going to be published?

Lord Fox: The Minister is getting a job lot of questions. I was hoping to hear her say that the shift in danger has gone from being just about liquidity to being about a lot of things connected with interest rates. We saw that in the autumn and again this week. When I suggested that the Treasury talk to the Bank of England about stress tests, I was suggesting not that the Treasury did the stress testing but that we would all be much more comfortable if we knew that shift had been taken on board and would inculcate future stress tests.

Baroness Penn: The point I was trying to make is that I am sure the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England will want to consider that. It updates its approach to stress testing both for banks and in its wider assessment of the risks to the financial sector more broadly. The noble Lord is not wrong in painting a picture of a changed context. We can also look at it for LDI, for example. While that is something for the FPC to take forward, I recognise the noble Lord’s points about that changed context. I hope that the points I made about how it holds its meetings and provides transparency about its considerations will reassure noble Lords about that process.
I will have to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the lessons learned and whether this reflection will be published. I do not know what form it will take. With the LDI process, interim findings have already been made public for people to take forward, but there is also further work. I imagine that a similar process may be followed here, but I will confirm this to noble Lords.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I have been reading paragraph 11 of this Statement against paragraph 17. Paragraph 11 rather surprisingly says that
“the system worked as we would hope.”
Paragraph 17 notes that officials at the Treasury and regulators
“worked tirelessly through the weekend to grip the situation … and to prevent real jeopardy to hundreds of the UK’s most innovative companies.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; cols. 560-61.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, observed, it was lucky that it was a weekend. We surely do not want to have our financial sector and the stability of our economy dependent on that kind of luck.
Paragraph 11 states:
“the system worked as we would have hoped.”
If this is really how the system is supposed to work, I suggest that we need a new or at least significantly reformed system—a more secure, stable, less fragile system than what followed the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank at the weekend. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about the speed at which events happen these days. There is a Bloomberg article headlined, “The Digital Age Ushers In A Speedier, More Viral Breed of Bank Run”, and I think that was clearly demonstrated here.
The Minister mentioned the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which refers to maintaining the UK’s position as an open and global financial hub. Have not the events of the weekend demonstrated the extreme dangers of pushing that as far as we possibly can, and the dangers of Clause 24, on the competitiveness of UK markets, which the Finance Innovation Lab, among many others, has noted is a push towards deregulation—to reduce regulation and increase risk—when it is clear we cannot afford the amount of risk we have now, as demonstrated by this case and the events involving our pensions last October? As we speak, the situation with Credit Suisse in Europe is still very unclear, as is that of a number of US banks.
Will the Government take a real look at the Financial Services and Markets Bill and their positioning of the UK’s financial sector, and look for a safe, secure sector that meets the needs of the real economy, rather than chasing growth?

Baroness Penn: On the noble Baroness’s final point, I do not think that those two aims need to contradict each other. In fact, the Financial Services and Markets Bill aims to deliver on both. I emphasise to the House the importance of a healthy financial services sector to growing our economy in all parts of our country. I point out to the noble Baroness that no one has said that the events over the weekend have brought into question the UK’s prudential regulatory regime and the protections we have put in place.
However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the changing context and being able to remain dynamic in our assessment of the risks and, therefore, in looking at how our system works, is absolutely right. The world changes very quickly and there is absolutely no room for complacency here. But do I think that the reforms we are proposing in the Bill are right? Do I think  they will both promote growth in the UK and protect the safety and soundness of our system? I do, and we will continue to strike that balance as we take our reforms forward.

Lord Grantchester: Although the main reason for Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse may be its poor handling of the bond market, whether or not augmented by aggressive raising of interest rates by the Fed in the US and turbulence from the Truss era in London, nevertheless, the fact that the bank’s business was focused on new technology and innovation has raised some alarm. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the technology sector, with its own stresses, has been protected by the transfer to the safe haven of HSBC, and that the drive to net zero and the raising of finance for that imperative has not been impeded in any way?

Baroness Penn: I can absolutely reassure the House that all depositors’ money with SVB UK is safe and secure as a result of the transaction. The noble Lord is right that many of SVB UK’s customers represented large parts of the tech sector in the UK. Part of the success of securing that sale means that they can continue with their business and with investing in innovative solutions to challenges such as net zero, confident that their banking services remain in place.

Building Safety Update
 - Statement

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend Michael Gove.
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to update the House on the progress we have made in securing commitments from developers to remediate properties with building safety defects. Last year, the major housebuilders signed a pledge to fix all the medium or high-rise buildings that they had built or refurbished that were unsafe. The developers also promised to reimburse the taxpayer for work already undertaken at government expense.
This Parliament has always been clear that those with ultimate responsibility for those buildings should bear the cost of remediation. Innocent leaseholders, who are neither responsible for safety defects nor equipped with the resources to fix the problem, should not be on the hook. Those who are responsible must pay. We have worked with developers to draw up a contract that gives direct effect to the pledge that they made. I was and remain grateful to those developers who have been so keen to live up to their obligations, and to Stewart Baseley of the Home Builders Federation for his skilful work in supporting the commitments made.
We published the legal contract on 30 January 2023, and I gave an initial cohort of developers six weeks to confirm that they accepted the list of buildings for which they take responsibility and then to sign the  contract. That deadline expired yesterday. I can today confirm that 39 developers have signed the contract. We have published a list of those developers on GOV.UK and hard copies of that list have been shared with the Vote Office. By signing the contracts, those developers have committed to fixing at least 1,100 buildings. They will invest more than £2 billion in that work—money saved for the taxpayer and money invested in giving leaseholders a brighter future. I thank those developers for their hard work and co-operation in helping us to right the wrongs of the past. They are making significant financial commitments and I am grateful to them.
Leaseholders who have been waiting for work to be done to make their building safe will rightly want that work to start without delay. I know that those responsible developers who have signed the contract understand that expectation and will be in touch with leaseholders to set out the programme of expected works as soon as possible. I take the opportunity once again to apologise to those leaseholders and others who have waited so long for this work to be done. While there is still much to do, I hope that today shows that your campaigning has not been in vain.
While the overwhelming majority of major developers have signed, some regrettably have not. Parliament has made clear what that means, and so have I. Those companies will be out of the housebuilding business in England entirely unless and until they change their course. Next week I will publish key features of our new responsible actors scheme, a means of ensuring that only those committed to building safety will be allowed to build in future.
Those developers who have been invited to sign the remediation contract, but who have not agreed to live up to their responsibilities, will not be eligible to join the responsible actors scheme. They will not be able to commence new developments in England or receive building control approval for work already under way. The House should note that the companies invited to sign the remediation contract that have not yet lived up to their responsibilities are Abbey Developments, Avant, Ballymore, Dandara, Emerson Group—Jones Homes—Galliard Homes, Inland Homes, Lendlease, London Square, Rydon Homes and Telford Homes.
While my officials remain in discussions with several who are making progress towards signing, I am concerned that some companies do not appreciate the grave nature of the responsibility they bear. I hope the directors of those firms will now exercise the same level of responsibility as the leaders of the building industry. The reluctance so far of some companies to sign up only underlines the need for the responsible actors scheme. It will ensure that there are consequences for developers who wish to be neither answerable nor accountable.
I will also take other steps to ensure that companies live up to their responsibilities. I will be writing to major investors in those firms to explain the commercial implications of their directors’ decisions. I will write to local authorities and building inspectors to explain that those developers’ projects may not be started or signed off. I will notify public bodies to be prepared to reopen tender award processes or rerun competitions. House buyers will want to know what that means for  them. We will formally set out the risks involved in purchasing homes from companies that have chosen to ignore the prospect of prohibitions.
The course of action that I have set out today is a significant intervention for any Government, but the magnitude of the crisis that we faced and the depth of the suffering for those affected clearly justified a radical approach. To their credit, the leaders of the development industry willingly accepted the need for action. The vast majority of developers have made undertakings to the British public to put right the wrongs of the past. We can now work together on making sure that we deliver more safe, affordable, decent homes for the country.
As they have rightly argued, we will do more to pursue freeholders who have yet to live up to their responsibilities, and construction product manufacturers, who also bear heavy responsibility for unsafe buildings. I will have more to say in the days and weeks to come. For the many thousands of people whose lives have been blighted by the failure properly to address building safety in the past, today’s update brings us another step closer to resolving the issue, and for that reason I commend this Statement to the House.”
That concludes the Statement.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Statement, which we welcome. I am sure that all noble Lords would want every possible step taken to support leaseholders and to speed up the remediation of unsafe buildings.
We have worked constructively with the Government throughout the drafting of legislation to improve building and fire safety and will continue to do so. The issue now, seven months after the original deadline of 10 August 2022, is for all major housebuilders to sign up to the building safety contract and bring an end to the limbo in which too many leaseholders still find themselves trapped. The fact that 39 developers have now signed a remediation contract is a significant step forward.
Can the Minister assure us that the terms of the contract will be properly enforced and that leaseholders affected by this will be kept informed and updated on progress? Remediation to date has been far too slow. Considering that the contract stipulates that repairs and remediation must be carried out only as soon as is practically possible, can the Minister explain what action is to be taken to ensure that leaseholders do not face any additional delays? I ask this particularly in the light of reports that have suggested that some signatories to the contract are planning to carry out new fire risk assessments to determine what defects will now need to be fixed and whether any will not. Surely leaseholders need clear assurances that all defects will be sorted. What are the implications for leaseholders in buildings out of the scope of the contract? Do the Government have a solution for them?
As the Statement rightly says, those who are responsible must pay. It is extremely disappointing that some builders have refused to sign. I commend the Statement for naming and shaming them. I am aware that the Secretary of State has been pretty robust in his language  in trying to bring builders who have not yet signed the contracts into line with those that have. I hope that his approach is successful. If not, the Secretary of State has clearly stated that such developers will be prohibited from further development. It would be helpful to understand how such a ban would be enforced.
The Secretary of State referred to the responsible actors scheme in the Statement and in his response to questions asked in the other place. We need clarity on when this will come into force.
We also have a particular concern regarding the number of buildings covered by the contract. As the Statement says, the commitment is to fix at least 1,500 buildings. Comparing that with the department’s estimate of between 6,220 and 8,890 unsafe buildings in the 11 to 18-metre height range, it is tackling only a small part of the challenge faced. How does the Minister envisage this being resolved, and what are the timescales? How many of the outstanding buildings above the 1,500 are the responsibility of those developers who have refused to sign the contracts?
Leaseholders living in buildings with defects that do not come within the scope of the contract are also going to fall by the wayside unless the Government have a plan for these buildings to be remediated as well. Can the Minister provide any assurances on this? During the passage of the Building Safety Act, we said that all leaseholders in unsafe buildings below 11 metres must be protected from costs. The Government said that they would provide support on a case-by-case basis. Does the Minister have a progress update on this? Leasehold is clearly not a good system. I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that we really need to bring it to an end. Is there any action coming from Government any time soon?
To reiterate, we welcome the Statement and encourage the Secretary of State to be as robust as the Statement lays out in dealing with those who are not looking to do the right thing and live up to their responsibilities.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement that she has repeated. On this side, we welcome it and the determination shown by the Secretary of State to deliver the outcomes that he has reported.
We welcome the decision of the leading housebuilders to put their shoulders to the wheel, to make things happen at long last and to relieve the anxiety and stress of many innocent householders. Surely the Home Builders Federation—an organisation that I do not always see eye to eye with—and Stewart Baseley should get a mention for facilitating the process in a very difficult climate.
There are some big buts, however. The firms named in the Statement are failing to deliver their fair share of the massive costs of remediation. That is disgraceful. We endorse the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take to limit their capacity to cause more damage and heartbreak in the future. I appeal to those firms, even if they do not recognise their duty to society or to the families that they have traumatised, to at least now recognise their duty to their shareholders, and to get their pens out and get some signatures on paper PDQ. I note that, in the Statement, the Secretary  of State is very much of the same opinion. I assure him that there will be a unanimous view across this House, urging him to get on and achieve that.
We should also recognise that, even after five years, this horrific saga is not over. This settlement is welcome but only partial. There remain, and will still remain, many families traumatised by the terrible failures right across the country which were exposed by the Grenfell inquiry.
Those terrible failures are now for the building industry to rectify. The industry has built homes that should have been places of security but were in fact death traps and that should have been places of warmth and comfort but instead have been left uninhabitable and unsaleable.
When can we expect to see the defaulting contractors finally accepting their liability and playing their proper part in helping desperate families to rebuild their lives? Will the Minister give noble Lords a timescale for further action and some hope for those families left stranded now for five years and growing?
The Statement says this programme will fund repairs for 1,100 buildings. How many homes are in those buildings? What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the gap between this programme of restitution and the enormous further cost of repairs still outstanding on building after building across the country which are not covered by it? How do the Government plan to close that gap? How many homes will remain unrepaired after this scheme comes to its end?
Finally, I will ask the question I know my noble friend Lady Pinnock would ask if she had been able to be here. Do Ministers still stick to their promise that not a penny of the costs of restitution will fall on the families who live in these homes—the completely innocent victims of this tragic episode? If Ministers do still stick by their word, when will we be told how that promise is to be delivered?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, today’s announcement is an important day for thousands of leaseholders living in buildings afflicted by fire safety defects. The Secretary of State announced that 49 developers had pledged to take responsibility for remediating unsafe buildings that they developed over the past 30 years. The pledge committed them to fix life-critical fire safety defects and reimburse the Government for grant funding paid out on their behalf to fix their buildings.
I had a lot more to say, but because of the late time I will just answer noble Lords’ questions—I am sure they will be happy with that. The most important thing is the impact that this will have on leaseholders and residents. They are the most important people in this. Once signed, the contract requires developers to take responsibility for addressing all life-critical fire defects arising from the design and construction of buildings over 11 metres in England and that they have developed or refurbished over 30 years. The developers will be expected to keep residents in those buildings informed of progress towards meeting this commitment. Monitoring and auditing provisions will ensure that the Government will hold developers to account to make sure that they are completing the work properly and at pace.
Talking about pace, we expect the developers to remediate their buildings at pace at all times. Some developers have already started assessing and remediating buildings, which is very welcome. Under the contract that we published this week, developers will be required to set out their plans to identify, prioritise, assess and fix defects as soon as reasonably practical. We will hold those developers to account to make sure that they are completing the work properly and at pace. Developers will be required to report to the department quarterly on progress against their remediation plans and to keep those leaseholders informed of that progress as well. That is an important part of the system.
Another part of the system that is important is the recovery strategy unit that we are setting up. We are further cracking down on those who fail to do the right thing and pay to fix building safety issues through a new recovery strategy unit. The unit is dedicated to pursuing firms that have failed to do the right thing and pay to fix the problems that they have created. It will take forward the most serious cases, holding the worst actors to account and delivering for leaseholders where other routes are not available. There will be some that fall outside all the issues that we have talked about, and the unit will be there to follow those cases. The unit contains an intelligence function to help to identify such cases, which is important. I am happy to say it is being run by Colonel Cundy—who sounds the right person to do it—and it is very happy if any Peers would like to be briefed on the work it is doing, because that is an important piece of work.
Noble Lords have asked about those not signing the contract. It is quite clear that if you fail to sign the contract and comply with its terms then you will not be able to operate freely in the housing market in this country, and more details of that will come out. The Government are committed to laying regulations under Sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to implement a responsible actors scheme for residential developers, supported by a system of building control and planning prohibitions that will impose serious consequences on eligible developers that do not sign up.
Both noble Lords said that they would support a robust response to this issue. I do not think I need to assure them that the Secretary of State can be very robust when he wants to be, and he will be very robust over this. He is passionate about the fact that those people should be doing the right thing for the people who live in the houses that they built which were not up to standard. I assure noble Lords that everything will be done, and more information will come out in the next weeks that will add to this Statement today. This is just the first Statement that needed to be made, because the Secretary of State promised he would let people know as soon as the six weeks were up.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would have wanted me to mention buildings under 11 metres in particular. It is generally accepted that life safety risk is proportional to the height of the building, as the noble Baroness knows, but a fire risk assessment and a fire risk appraisal of external walls conducted in accordance with the PAS 9880 principle will often find that lower-cost mitigations are more appropriate in low-rise buildings. We stress again that the responsibility  for the costs of fixing historic building safety defects should rest with the building owner. They should not pass those costs on to leaseholders but should seek to recover them from those who were responsible for building unsafe homes in the first place. It is important that any leaseholders in this situation look for support and information on how to ensure that those responsible for their unsafe houses get in touch. I know that many people in this situation have written to the department and are being supported by it. That is an issue, and I thank the noble Baroness, as always, for bringing it up.
I hope I have answered most of the questions. If not, I ask noble Lords to let me know. I will go through Hansard in the morning, but I think the major issues that noble Lords have brought up have been answered.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is a positive step forward, but only a partial step. The Minister referred to my noble friend Lady Pinnock and her concerns about buildings under 11 metres. I also want to highlight those that are the responsibility of non-major housebuilders. Earlier today, in Grand Committee, we talked about the 13,000 high-risk high-rise buildings, yet this Statement talks only about
“fixing at least 1,100 buildings.”
I am not expecting answers, but I am concerned about how many smaller builders there are—they may still be big builders by many business standards, but they are not the major developers. Will they also have to sign a contract as part of next steps?
I think that both my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I completely understand that the death rate in fires at lower levels is, thankfully, lower, but homes are still destroyed, and the same poor products have been used. What are the Government going to do about those?
The other point that I know the residents of those buildings will talk about is the excessive insurance charges they are being forced to pay at the moment. Are the Government planning to talk to the insurance companies in the same way they have been working with the major housebuilders? Again, it is not the fault of the tenants and residents of these high-rise blocks that they should be faced with those bills, and I wonder whether perhaps there could be some help there.
Finally, the Secretary of State said in the Statement that these would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis—but there are thousands of buildings. Do the Government have any idea how long it is going to take to respond to this? Are we going to have quarterly Statements in the future? It will be enormously helpful if we are, but I am worried that it is easy to think that because we are dealing with big companies, everything is resolved. It absolutely is not.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I can assure the noble Baroness that some of these companies in the list that we have seen today are not the large companies. That, obviously, is causing some of the smaller companies  to need a little more support, because it is more difficult financially for them to sign up to the financial costs of this. We are working with them on ways they might be able to pay back. We are not giving them any money for the future, but the Government have already paid for some of the payback of remediation work; we are helping them with payment schemes if that helps.
There will always be other companies, and that is why we are always saying that this is not the end of the system. This is the beginning, and the department will keep going until we make sure that no leaseholder is in the position that they have been in over these years.
As for the signing of the contracts, there are 4,000 buildings owned by those companies, of which about 1,000 have life-critical fire safety defects. We have to be careful with the figures, because they may be responsible for many more properties than actually have any problems. That is an important issue.
As far as insurance is concerned, yes, the department has been working with the FCA and the insurance companies over a number of months, if not years, because we are well aware of this issue, and we will continue to work with them. Particularly now that we are getting a solution to it, there is absolutely no need for these insurance issues at the moment.
Was there anything else? There was nothing on PEEPs tonight.

Baroness Brinton: I thank the Minister. She answered my question, and I look forward to hearing from her on PEEPs in the future.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I have three interrelated questions, and I am going to relate them to the 1,100 buildings mentioned in the Statement, not the rather breathtaking figure from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of 13,000 buildings. The Statement rightly says that leaseholders will want work to start without delay on all 1,100 buildings, which are, by definition, significant buildings. Are the Government confident that there are sufficient skills and ability, as well as the sheer workforce, to deliver this in any meaningful kind of timeframe?
Although most of the focus since the awful tragedy of Grenfell has been on external wall systems, there are also huge and quite complicated problems that have been discovered with fire-stopping systems, particularly breaches of compartmentalisation in the way buildings have either been designed or built. Fixing that is not going to be a simple matter of taking some cladding off and putting some cladding on; it is going to require a very high level of skills to make sure that you are genuinely fixing the problem and not, goodness forbid, making it worse.
In that context, the Health and Safety Executive recommended the golden thread principle, which I think probably applies here, of ensuring that there is a responsible person who is in control, really understands what is happening and has all the necessary documents and understanding.
I also note that this week the consultation closes on what is known as approved document B, which is the new and improved iterative process of fire safety standards.  That is only going to apply to new buildings and will not affect existing buildings. Are the Government really committed to ensuring that we get the best possible standards in these buildings? People have now been living in fear for years, and they need the confidence to know their buildings are as safe as possible.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: Skills is an interesting issue. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we expect developers to remediate these buildings at pace and we will be on their backs to do that. They also need to be doing the work properly. To that end, we will be checking the quality as well as how quickly they have done it. We will be checking it for two years after the work as well, so that we make sure that it has been done to the highest possible standard. Obviously, if the sector brings up skills as an issue, then we will have to look into it and deal with it. As far as I know, we have not been told as yet that there is going to be a skills shortage for this.
On the accountable person, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are looking at the regulator and we have just today put through some SIs about accountable persons. They are going to be critical because they are going to be the people in these buildings who are responsible to the regulator to say that they are going to do everything that had to be done, monitored and checked under the Fire Safety Act. We put the SI through today and, once those regulations come into force, I think we will have a much better idea of what is happening in all of these high-rise, high-risk buildings.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I first declare some interests. I am chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association. I am also a director of MHS Homes Ltd and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am also a leaseholder but am not in any way affected by the issues discussed.
It has been five years and nine months since the dreadful Grenfell Tower fire where 72 people lost their lives. While the Statement from the Government is welcome, you could not accuse this Government of acting in haste. It has been five years and nine months we have been waiting for this. There has been progress, yes, but progress has been slow, and I think we need to put that on record.
I was pleased with what the Government said. Looking at the list of developers which have not signed the contract, I think it is a list of shame. I hope the noble Baroness will take back to the department that, when considering next steps, every possible avenue should be thought through. What we do not want to happen is that company X becomes company Y and just changes its name. We need to go after the individual directors as well because, unless people understand that it will affect them, they will find all sorts of reasons to get around it. Frankly, not to have signed this contract is an utter disgrace. I am sure that the department will be doing that as well.
I was really pleased to learn about Colonel Cundy. We have a Special Forces commando now coming to lead on this, which is wonderful. Could we arrange for Colonel Cundy to come the Lords, to give Members a briefing on what he is doing? It would be really good to hear that; it would be really interesting for us all.
I often raise general issues about leasehold in, for example, houses. All the terrible things that people have experienced in these blocks—the appalling bills, stress, worry, hearing from nobody; the general bad behaviour from developers, freeholders and managing agents—all comes round again to the issue of leasehold reform. I know that it is a wider issue, but we have to get it sorted out. I cannot get an answer from the Government—I keep asking—on this issue. Will the leasehold Bill, which we have yet to see, but which is coming down the track, be a Bill to reform or abolish leasehold? I cannot get that question answered. I know that I will not get an answer tonight—maybe I will be surprised—but it would be really great to know what the Bill will do when it comes.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: First, I say that I absolutely agree, and the Secretary of State agreed. He said in his Statement today, as he has said in many Statements, that it has been too long, but we are where we are and we are getting on with it, and we will move forward with pace. I think that he has done that since he has returned to the department.
As far as those who have not signed, we have not given up on them. We are still working with them, and we are serious about that. The Secretary of State named and shamed them today, and we will stop them building any more houses in this country if they do not stand up to their responsibilities.
On leasehold, I can only quote my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who has set out his intention in the Commons to bring the outdated and feudal tenure of leasehold to an end. I cannot give the noble Lord a date, as he knows, and I will probably say that again many times here before I can. But, honestly, for me it will be the best day ever, when I can stand up here and give him the date for the leasehold reform Bill. As I have said before, it is a manifesto commitment, and we intend to introduce it by the end of this Parliament.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I will come back to the Minister on that point, because I cannot get this clear. One moment, she said that the Government will end the outdated system of leasehold—I agree with that; that is very welcome—but then she talked about the leasehold “reform” Bill. I do not understand that. Will the Bill reform or abolish leasehold? A reform Bill is needed too, so I do not mind which it is, but I cannot get a clear answer. I read the material in the House of Commons, I read the material in the Sunday Times, and I watched Michael Gove’s interview on Sky News, but they are all saying different things. I cannot get a straight answer to a straight question. Will the Bill reform or abolish leasehold? That is all I want to learn. I know that she cannot tell me when it will come, but I would like to know what will be in it.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: Until we know when it will come, we will not know what is in it, will we? What I can say is what I have said before: it is really important to understand the complexity of this matter. Building a house is different for leasehold, as the noble Lord knows, and we have very few leasehold houses now being built and sold. However, when you get to flats—to make commonhold work for flats—  government, industry and consumers must all work very closely together. It is very complex, and it will take time.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I will make one final point. As the Minister knows, I have a Question on this issue coming up before we break for   Easter. Could she please go back to the department before then? I will ask the same question again, so I hope to get another answer.
House adjourned at 9.38 pm.